EVALUATING AN EARLY IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM: DOES THE DISC PRESCHOOL S C W N @PS) PREDICT ACHIEVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENTAL

STATUS IN A KlNDERGARTEN SAMPLE?

Thesis submitted in partial fbifibent of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Human Development

School of Graduate Studies Laurentian University

Sudbliry, Ontario

0 PATRIZIA DIMARIO, 1999

National Library 1+1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nm WJlingtwi OttawaON K l A W OtiawaON K l A W Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence ailowing the exclusive permettant B la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distrihite or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in rnicrofonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de

reproduction sur p~pier ou sur format électronique.

The author retaios ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

Abmct

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the DISC Preschwl Screen @PS) is an

appropriate developmental screen for use in the early identification/early intervention program

Waiàen Fair Start. The purpose of Walden Fair Start was to ideatm children with possible

developmental delafis) that may interfere with their school achievement during kindergarten.

Thus, examination of the reliability and vaiidity of the DPS for predicting school achievement was

the main focus of this study.

The paiiicipants were 44 primary grade students who had attendeci Waldm Fair Start and

were retested 9 to 10 months later in school. Additiody, 29 other chilchen were included in the

in-school testing for cornparison purposes. Measures used were the DPS, the Boehm Test of

Basic Concepts, Preschool Version (BTBC-PV), a tacher completed school achievernent

questionnaire, and a parent report questionnaire.

It was found that the DPS had limited cntenon-related vJidity for predicting school

achievement with validity coefficients raaging fiom -26 to -56. The DPS had moderate reliability

(test-retest, split-half and interna1 consistency) which may be adequate for use as a developmental

screen. Thus, the results provideci limited support for the use of the DPS at Waldeu Fair Start

and hrther research regarding its reliability and criterion-related validity for predicting school

achievement should be conducteci.

Acknowiedgments

1 would iike to th& my advisor, Dr. EIizabeth Levin, and cornmittee members, Dr.

Cynthia WhisseU and Dr. Derek WiIkinsoa, for their help throughout the completion of my thesis.

1 would also Like to thank my f d y and fiends for their endless love and support. Ia porticular 1

would W<e to thank my very dear fiend Carnien Delongchamp. She was always ready to deliver

optimism and clear-headed advice to help me ward ofMe many "thesis anxieties7' 1 experieneed.

Ano?her person that was always there to lend a ear and to brighten my day was Carmen Paquette.

1 don? h o w what 1 would have done without "my Cannens" and 1 appreciate them dearly.

Table of Contents

Abstra ct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i .. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ListofTables v

Evaluating an Early Identification Pro-: Does the DISC Preschool Screen Predict Achievement and Developmental Status in a Kindergarten Sample? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Milestones Attainment and Developrnental Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 3 EarlyIdenMcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mass Developmental Screening Ciinics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 8

. . . . . . . . . . . Developmental Status Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Attributes of DeveIopmental Screem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Validity ............................................................ 13

Constnictvalidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Cnterion-related validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. .. . , . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Reliabili ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Evaluation of Psychometric Properties of Scfeens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 DISC Preschool Screen and the Diagnostic Inventory for Screenhg Children . . . . . . . . 20 Rationale for Present Research and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Description of Walden Play and Leam Cooperative, Inc . and Walden Fair Start . . . . . . 28 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

DISC Preschool Screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, Preschool Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Tacher's School Readiness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BehaviourApp =dix 35 School achievement questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Parentquestionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Testing procedures used at Walden Fair Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 In-schaol testùig procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 3 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachermeasures 39 Parentquestionnaire ............................................. 39

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Descriptive Statistics for DPS and SchooI Achievernent Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Distributions of DPS and School Achievement Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4 3

ComelationalAnalyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 GenderCompaiUons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Validity and Reliabiity Analyses 50 ............................................... Prediaivevalidity 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConcumntMLidity 54

Description of chüdren who ceceiveci foiiow-up recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constnidvaüdi ty 63

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Test-retest re l iab' i - 64 Split-halfreliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intemal consistency reliability 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Selectioa Bias Analyses 65

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion 70 Summary of Results o f the Validity and Reliability of the DPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Factors Affecthg the DPS' Criterion-Related Validity and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Walden Fair Start 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Future Research 86

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion 88

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References 90

List of Tables

Table 1 Classification Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for DPS and SchooI Achievement Measures by Walden Fair Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attendance 41

Table 3 Frequencies for DPS Clsssifications and Nominal School Achievement Measures by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walden Fair Start Attendance - 4 2

Table 4 Correlations Arnong Schwl AchievementQuestio~aire Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 5 Correlations Between Schwt Acbievemenî Questionnaire Scores and BTBC.PV. TSRI, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Behaviour Appendix Swres - 4 6

Table 6 Mann-Whitney R d t s Comparing Girls and Boys on the School Achievement Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 7 Crosstabs Results Comparing Girls and Boys on the Nominal School Achievement Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 8 DPS' Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for School Achievement Measures . . . . . 51

Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Follow-up Sarnple From Wdden Fair Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Follow-up Sample From the In-School Testing . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 1 1 Mann-Whitney Results Comparing Walden Fair Start Attendees and Non-Waiden Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Start Attendees on School Achievement M v e s 66

Table 12 Crosstabs Results Cornparhg Walden Fair Start Attendees and Non-Walden Fair Start Attendees on the Nominal School Achievement Measwes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 13 Crosstabs Results Cornparhg Parents of Walden Fair Start Attendees and Parents of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Waiden Fair Start Attendees - 6 9

Evaluating an m l y Identification Program: Does the DISC Preschool Screen Predict Achievement and Developmental Status in a

Kindergarten Sample?

It has been estimated that there is a 1W prevalence of developmental delay amongst

preschoolers (Fust & PaEey, 1994). The prevaience of developmental delay is an educational

concern due to its potential to lead to eârly school Edilure in addition to subsequent specid

education placements (Anderson, 1985; Glascoe, 1997). In fact, developmental status is one

common rneasure used to identifj. chiidren at-risk for school failure (Cadman, Walter, Chambers,

Ferguson, Suitmari, Johnson, & McNamee, 1988; McKee Agoain & Bain, 1997; Meisels 1986).

In recent years there has been growing concern regarding the prevalence of school failure and the

negative outcornes associated with school failure (Cadman et ai., 1988; Parker, Mainland, &

Amdur, 1997). It has been estimated that 15 to 20% of children in Ontario experience academic

difficulties (Parker, Mainland, & Amdur, 1997). According to the Ontario Child Health Study, as

cited by Cadmm et al. (1988), 16% of children have repeated at least one grade. In the United

States grade retention, even in kindergarten, is a prevalent practice (Mantzicopoulos & Neubarth-

Pritchett, 1988; McKee Agostin & Bain, 1997). As a result there has been a growing ernphasis on

attempting to provide early identitication of children who are at-nsk for school fdure, with the

intent to subsequmtly provide the appropnate early intemntion services to help those children

avoid school failure (Simner, 1992). Staudardized tests, including measures of developmental

status, achievement, and school readiness, have becorne an important component of early

identification efforts as well as decisions regarding curriculum development and grade placements

(Judy, 1986; Wlson Hills, 1987; Perrone, 1991).

2

A comunity-based mass screeaing program is one example of implementation of &y

identification of and early intervention for developmental problems ofpreschooIers (Cadman,

Chambers, Walter, Ferguson, Johnston, McNarnee, 1987). Fair Start is an example of an early

identificationkarly intervention program. Essa & Stresman (1 991) describeci Fair Start as a

community-baseci, mass developmental screening c h i c targeted to preschoolers entering into

kindergarten. The objective of Fair Start is to idente children who have possible deveiopmental,

language, or phyucal delay(s) or problem(s), that may negatively affect their subsequent school

achievement in kindergarten prior to school entrance so that intervention can be provided before

any academic problems occw.

The community of Walden, Ontario held a Fair Start program on May 22 and 23*, 1998.

Walden Fair Start was organized by and held at the Walden Play and Leam Cooperative. The

general developrnental screen utihed at Waiden Fair Start was the DISC PreschooI Screen @PS)

developed by Parker, Mainiand, and Amdur (1997). The purpose of the administration of the DPS

was to ident@ children who may have developmentai delay(s) in language, attention and memory,

or motor skilis, that may lead to early school failtue in kindergarten

The goal of Walden Fair Start was to provide the screen results to identifjr children who

may have developmental delay(s) that may negatively impact on their academic achievement in

kindergarten if the appropriate early identification and early intervention was not provided.

Therefore, the screens used must be able to measure abiiities related to school achievement that

can be used to predict those preschoolers who may have subsequent ditnculties in kindergarten.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the general developmental screening component of the

Walden Fair Start program. The main question was, does the DPS provide a valid and reliable

3

meanire of developmentd statu that can be used to predict children's subsequent school

achievernent in kindergarten?

A second purpose of this study was to examine selection b i s in the sample of children

who attended Walden Fair Start. To address this research question at the time of foliow-up in-

school testing a sample of nonWalden Fair Start attendees was assessed to provide an estimate of

selection bias in the sarnple of children who had been screened at Walden Fair Start.

The liteniture review begins with a bief explanation of destones anainment and

developrnental delay. Then, early identification including descriptions of mass screening clinics

and developmental =eem is discussed. Psychometric ternis are dehed foliowed by criteria used

to judge the psychometric characteristics of developmental screens. Finally, the rationaie for the

evaluation of the DPS is provided, the importance of evaluating a test's validity and reiiability for

a particular purpose, followed by specific hypotheses and research questions.

& f i l e m D&y

Development has been dehed as a continuous process that undergoes a number of

different phases (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; DiGirolamo, Geis, & Walker, 1998). DiGirolamo,

Geis, and Walker (1998) dehed developmental destones as the traits, or normative behaviours,

typical of a developmental phase which ocair in a predictable sequence. Howwer, there is

variation among children in the rate at which they advance through each phase's growth

sequences in the various developmental domains (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; DiGiiolamo, Geis, &

Walker, 1998). As well, chiidren's rate of development through the phases is often asynchronous,

or uneven, across the various developmental domains (Nationai Center for LeMiiag Dioebilities,

1996-1 999). Development is also characterized by growth spurts and critical periods

(DiGirolamo, Geis, & Walker, 1998).

Developmental milestones are used to measure children's rate of growth (Cohen &

S pencher, 1994; National Center for L d g Disabilities, 1996- 1999; Oestemeich, 1995).

Knowledge of developmentd milestones at the various ages within the major domains of child

development is necessary in orda to be able to provide eariy idmtification of and early

intervention for developmental delay (DiGirolarno, Geis, & Waîker, 1998). Palmer (1 996)

recornmended that a comprehensive evaluation of the child's curent and past milestones

attainment be included as an important componmt in the early identifkation of developmental

delay. From evaluation of a child's destones attainment it is possible to see if the child is

progressing at a slower rate than expected for hider age in one or more developmental domains.

It is also possible to see if the chiid has attained milestones in an atypical sequence.

However, milestones are stiU to be used as general guideluies as there are great individual

diEerences arnong children in their rate of development (National Center for L d g Disabilities,

1996- 1999; Oestemeich, 1995; Stoops et ai., 1991). Furthemore, it is inadequate to rely solely on

evaiuation of miiestones attainment in identification of developmental delay. It is necessary to

evaluate children's destones attainment in relation to the quality of their slàlls and level of

overaii fbnctioning (National Centa for Learning Disabilities, 1996- 1999). It is also important to

consider how 0 t h factors such as health, neural development, temperament, and enWonment

impact on miiestones attainment. For exampIe, a child's delayed motor development may be the

result of illness that has led to d e c r d strength and physical growth (Capute & Accardo, 1997).

Aylward (1997) stated that another caution in utiluing evaluation of milestones attainment

5

in identification of developmental delay is it is diffidt to cîistînguish children 4 t h non-

problematic delay fiom those with disordered delay. A child's pattern of milestones attainment

may be characterked by delay, dissociation, or deviance (Aylward, 1997; Capute & Accardo,

1997; DiGirolamo, Geis, & Walicer, 1998; First & PaEy, 1994). According to one definîtion,

children who do not reach expected milestones by a particular age, taking into account individual

variations, are developmentally delayed (DiGiroiarno, Geis, & Walker, 1998; Fust & Paifiy¶

1994). One typical criterion is a discrepancy f?om the expected rate of development of 25% or

more (DiGirolamo, Geis, & Walker, 1998). Delay may be globai or o m r in oniy one or more

areas of development, the latter termed dissociation or asynchronous growth (Aylward, 1997;

Capute & Accardo, 1997; DiGûoIamo, Geis & Walker, 1998; First & Palfiry, 1994). According

to Capute and Accardo (1997) delay and dissociation in milestones attainment rnay be temporary

and ".. .there is nothîng intrinsicaily abnormal (the delayed destones are attained in a fashion that

is indistinguishable fkom what would be expected in a normal but younger chîid)" ( p. 5).

However, for some developmental disabiities there are characteristic dissociations. One example

is often children with mental retardaîion have more advanced motor development than language

or cognition (Aylward, 1997; Capute & Accardo, 1997). Another example is that ofien children

whose language is delaye. but whose cognitive functioning is at an age-appropnate level have a

specific language disorder (Aylward, 1997). Developmental delay is considered problernatic, or

disordered, when destones attainment can be considered markedly unusual or merent in

comparison to what wouid be typical for children at that age. In other words, development is

more likely to be considered disordered versus delayed if the child's milestones attainment f d s

outside of the range typical for hidher age in ternis of both sequence anuor rate (Nationai Center

6

for Leamhg Disabilities, 1996-1999). The overall level of hctioning of children with disorderd

vernis delayed development is typically rather low. Such atypicai developmental progress is

terrned deviame and it is a b n o d at any age (Aylward, 1997; Capute Br Accardo, 1997).

Cognition and language (Aylwarâ, 1997) and h e motor/perceptuaî motor skills

(Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1) during the preschool yean have been found to be the most

predictive of later developmental status and academic Nnctioning in early chi idhd. Speech,

gross motor, adaptive behaviour, and socionnotional development are relevant but usually are not

as predictive of later development or academic achievement in the absence of severe

developmental difEculties (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1).

Preschool early identification is usudy targeted to children between the ages of three to

five years (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991). The main goal of the provision of early identification of

developmental delay in preschoolers is to serve as the fist step in early intervention efforts

(American Academy of Pediatrics, 1994; Aylward, 1997; Squires, Nickel, & Eisert, I 9%). There

are two cornmon goals of early identification of developmental delay in preschoolen: to provide

early intervention that cm either prevent or ameliorate developmental disability or delay

(American Academy of Pediatics, 1994; Squires, Nickel, & Eisert, 1996); and to provide early

identification of children at risk for school failure ancilor speciai ducation services prior to school

entry so that early intewention could be provided before academic problerns occur (Lichtenstein

& Ireton, 199 1). The main component of early identification efforts is the administration of

developmental screens useci to identify those children who rquire M e r d e v e l o p m d

assessment andor eady intervention services (American Academy of Pediatncs, 1994;

Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1).

The developmeatal screeniag model is based on the medical screeaing model (Meisels,

1984). Medid screening attempts to screen populations ofhdividuals in an effort to provide

early identification of individuals at risk for developing a disease or disorder when they are aill in

an asymptomatic stage. The reason for attempting to i d e at risk status when individuals are

asymptomatic is the assurnption that intervention is more efficacious the earlier that it is provided

(Gipps & Gross, 1986; Meisels, 1984). According to the World Health Organization (WHO)

(195 1) screening refen to the use of non-diagnostic, easy to administer tests to iden* persons

who may have a particular medical condition. Only those individuals who are identifïed undergo

subsequent diagnostic assessment, and ifnecessary, treatment (Wilson & Junger, 1968 as cited by

Meisels, 1984, p. 276).

This type of screening, or early identification, allows secondary prevention because its aim

is not to prevent the disease or disorder from occUmng, but instead to identifL and intervene as

soon as possible to prevent fiirther exacerbation of the problem, either by stopping its progress or

making the condition betta (Frankenburg, 1985; Meisels, 1984). One example of such screening

and secondary prevention is the meening of aii newborns for phenyiketonurea (PKU) (a

condition which affects the digestive system that ifleft untreated will lead to mental retarhtion).

Early identification of PKU is necessary to ensure that treatment is administerd cary enough to

prevent mental retardation (Gipps & Gross, 1986; Frankenburg, 1985; Meiselq 1984).

D e y y . .

The purpose of mass developmental screening clinics is to attempt to screen an entire

target population, for example preschoolers who are going to enter kindergarten The typical

procedures that should be carried out by mass screening clinics are: outreach (making eligible

participants aware of the chic, may include active search and recruitment of participants);

provision of uniform screening procedures for ali participants; and the dissemination of the

appropriate referrals for additional assessment when warranteci (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1).

M a s screening clinics are most successnil when they are a wmponent of a senice network,

which ensures that the children identifieci by the screens as being at risk for developmental

problems andor school problems receive the appropnate assessment and intervention

(Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1). This is the most important aspect of developrnental mass screening

clinics because early identification is not meant to be a . end, rather it is meant to be a means to

aid in provision of early intervention to children who rquire it (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991).

Thus, mass screening clinics need the cooperation of many professionals and organizations within

the comunity to ensure that the appropriate eariy identification and intemention is provided. In

addition, mass screening ctinics need clearly dehed goals and a well planned systern of screening

and subsequent service delivery that can meet those goals (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991). It is very

dficult to organize and irnplement an effective mass developrnental screening clinic; a great deal

of cost, in terms of finance, tirne, and effort is required. The extent to which a mass

developmental screening cünic can ni1n1l its role within the s e ~ c e delivery mode1 and the extent

to which resources are available within the community to provide the subsequerit assessrnent and

intervention required wiU detemine how much benefit wiü be incuffed by the participants of the

9

screening clinic. As weil it is necessary to have the support of parentsy in temis of willingness to

participate in the screening clinic and to comply with subsequent referrals and recommmdations

suggested to them ifchiidren are to receive the maximum help and benefit from the identification

and intervention procedures (Lichtenstein & kaon, 1991).

It has been suggested that developmental screening for children to iden* those who may

have subsequent school problems needs to be muitidimensional (Arnerican Academy of Pediatncs,

1994; Aylward, 1997; Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; Judy, 1986; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1). It is

important to include screening of vision and hearing and to elicit information regarding the

children's health status (Cohen & Spenciner, 1984; Judy, 1986; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1).

Many developmentaVcognitive and school problems are the result of heaIth or modality problems

(Judy, 1 986). In regards to obtaining health status information, a detailed medical history may be

of use however, it is usualiy more usefiil to obtain information regarding m e n t health status

(Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991). According to Judy (1 986) inclusion of heaith and modality

screening is necessary because unrecognized problems in children with age-appropriate cognitive

development may lead to school problems. Multidimensional developmental screening also needs

to include consideration of parental concenis regarding their child's development and parental

report of their child's developmental and health history to provide accurate identification of

children who need fiirther assessrnent andor intervention (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1). In

addition, the family environrnent is a particularIy important influence on children's development

during the preschool years (Lichtenstein & ireton, 1991; Meisels 1984). When f e b l e , obtaining

parental reports of relevant fàmily environment characteristics may aid in the early identification

pro&s~ (Meisels, 1984). Examples of relevant family environment characteristics that parents

10

could be asked to report include parental involvement with the child (Meisels, 1984) for example

the type and amount of care and attention provided to the child as weU as the intellectual

stimulation the child is exposed to (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991), parental socioeconondc status

(SES), family stress (Meisels, 1984), and methods used to discipline the child (Lichtenstein &

Ireton, 1991).

Choice of areas to înclude in a mltidimensional screening procedure u-ed by a mass

screening chic should be guided fint and forernost by the goals of the program. Another

important consideration is the amount and type of assessrnent and intervention services available

within the comrnunity (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1).

The physical set-up of a mass screening chic is typically a number of screening stations

organized in an arena-style set-up (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994). Information can be obtained by

either direct evaluation of the child andior parent report (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991).

The reasoning behind preschool developmental screening clinics is the evidence which

indicates that early identification and early intervention aimed at prevention of school failure is

beneficial for children. For example, Essa & Stresman (1997) state:

In its 1994 report, the Royal Commission on Leaming underlined the need for early

detecrion of possible barriers to effective leaniing. There is hearteaing evidence that when

young children with apparent learning disabilities experience early identifkation and early

intervention, a signincant number of them will avoid the need for special education.

Literature clearly States that children who are disadvantaged or disabied and do not

receive early intemention can be harmed and run the risk of academic failure (p.24).

Developme-

A screen is an assessment instrument that can be administereâ to a large population of

individuals in order to identify those who may have a problem in the area(s) being assessed fiom

those who do not. However, as Meisels (1984) pointed out, screens are not diagnostic

instruments, they can only identw those iadividuals who need m h e r assessment to detennine

whether they actualiy have any serious problem(s). For example, the Snellen eye chart is a screen

that can ident@ individals who require a diagnostic optometric exam to determine Xthey have

vision problems.

Developmentai screens can include any of the followhg domains: cognition, language

(expressive and receptive), speech, auditory or visuai perception, motor skills (fine and gross),

adap tive behaviour or self-help skiils, and socioemotional or psychosocial development ( Aylward,

1997; Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; Lichtenstein & keton, 1991). Developrnental screens can target

one domain of development or can include measures of a number of developmental domains

(Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; Squires Nickel, & Eisert, 1996). According to Squires Nickel. &

Eisert ( 1 996):

ccDevelopmental Screening" is a briec formai evaiuation of developmentai skilis applied to

a total population of children, which is intended to iden* those children with suspect

problems who should be referred for a complete diagnostic assessment. It does not give a

definite diagnosis or a developmental quotient but rather ninctions as a " r d flag" to

indicate which children need f i d e r investigation (p. 420).

One of the purposes of developmental screens is to identify children, fiom large

populations of children at risk for d d developmentai delay who othenvise would not be

12

identified early (Aylward, 1997; Dworkin, 1989). Screening is not concemed with identifjing

children with severe disabilities such as cerebral palsy, autism, or severe mental retardation "rather

screening is most often concernecl with the identification of children at risk for more subtie

developmental problems that would otherwise elude early detection such as rnild mental

retardation, speech and language delays, leamkg disabilities, and clumsiness" @workin, 1989, p.

620). Another purpose of developmental screens is to measure chiidren's abiiities and their

potential to acquire abiüties to identify those who may subsequently have difiicuities in school,

including later diagnosis of learning disabilities andor later requirement of special education

services (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1 ; Meisels, 1986).

Developmental milestones are the comerstone of developmental xxeening. Screening tests

include items that correspond to developmental milestones and risk factors associateci with

developmental delay or disability (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1994; Shapiro, 1997).

Parker, Mainiand, and Amdur (1997) explained that there are two types of developrnental

screens: first-stage screens and second-stage screens. A fkst-stage screen is admuiistered to

children without an a prion referral for developmental delay and is commonly used in mass

screening clinics. A second-stage screen is administered to children with an a prion refend for

developmental assessment in order to detennine ifa fili diagnostic assessment is needed, and if

so, what area(s) need to be assesseci.

Attribut es of D e v e l o m Screeu

The necessary administrative characteristics of screens include: bnef administration, oflen

less than fifteen minutes, wtuch is necessary to allow for large numbers of children to be screened

13

easily; inexpensive test materials; and objective administration and scoring which ensures that they

can be adrninistered properly by paraprofessionals nich as teachers, nurses, graduate students

versus psychologists, psychometrists, or medical doctors (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; Lichtenstein

& Ireton, 199 1; Meisels, 1984).

The necessary psychometric characteristics of screens are that they are standdieci,

uiclude normative data, and have adequate vaiidity and rehability (Aylward, 1997; Lichtenstein &

Ireton, 1 99 1 ; Meisels, 1984).

Vaiidity

Vaiidity refers to the extent to which a test meanires what it purports to meanrre (Cohen

& Spenciner, 1994; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). The Merent types of validity include

construct, content, face, and cnterion-related validity (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; CPA, 1 996;

W, 1996; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994).

Vaiidity is an especiaiiy critical component in a psychometric assessrnent because validity

concems not only the extent to which a test meanires a particular constnia but also includes how

the test scores c m be interpreted and the extent to which test scores are used appropriately (CPA

1996; IAAP, 1996; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994; Wdson & Kirby, 1994; Wdson & Rees, 1990).

Thus, the primary focus when evaluating validity is provision ofevidence that a test is appropriate

for particular purposes and inferences (CPA, 1996; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). The Canadian

Psychological Association (CPA) (1996), the Natioral Council on Measurement in Education

(NCME) (1995), and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)

(1987) have guidelines for test authors, test publishers, and test usem regarding evaluation of a

14

test's vaiidity for particular purposes and interpretations based on the test scores. Test users are

responsible for conducting thorough reviews of avaiiable tests and when necessary providing the

information to other test users (CPA, 1996). Choice of tests should be based on the psychometnc

characteristics of the test and its validity for the htended purpose (CPA, 1996; NAEYC, 1987;

NCME, 1995). In some cases when validity evidence is lacking for a particular purpose the onus

is on the test user to provide it (CP4 1996). Establishg validiîy for a particular purpose is

especially important because a test that is valid for one purpose is not necessarily valid for another

purpose (Wilson & Rees, 1990). The most cornmon abuse of psychological testhg is the use of

tests for purposes for which they are inappropriate (Meisels, 1986).

. . ÇMztruct validity. C o m m a validity refers to the extent to which a test m e m e s the

constnict(s) it purports to measure (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; CPA, 1996; Murphy &

Davidshofer, 1994). The better defined the wnstnict is, the easier it is to evaluate the c o n m a

validity of a test (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). Evaluating constmct vaiidity is very important

as there are no psychological tests which are absolutely accurate meanires of any constma. Thus,

in order to make inferences based on test scores it is necessary to h o w the accuracy of the

inferences and decisions made on the basis of those test scores (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994).

. . . . nteripn-rwed v- Criterion-related vaiidity refers to the correlation between a test

score and a criterion, or outcome of an inference made on the basis of the test score (Cohen &

Spenciner, 1994; CP4 1996; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). It is important to evaluate aiterion-

related vaiidity in addition to construct validity because validity for measurernent is not a sufncient

15

condition for validity for decisions (Murphy & Davidshofm, 1994). Then are two types of

criterion-related validity: concurrent and predictive. Concurrent validity refers to the extent to

which the test being evaluated cm predict scores on one or more other tests (criterion

measure(s)) administered at approximately the same time (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; CPA, 1996;

Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). In a predictive validity study there is a time interval between the

test and the subsequent administration of the critenon measure(s). Predicfve validiîy refers to the

extent to which the test being evaluateâ can predict performance on one or more other tests that

are subsequentiy administered (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; CPA, 1996; Murphy & Davidshofer,

1994).

The degree of acairacy with which the test can predict performance on the other criterion

measure(s) that is considered adequate depends on the type of decision(s) that d be made with

the test (CPA, 1996). The value of evidence of critenon-related validity is reliant on the choice of

cnterion measure(s), in particular the validity and reliability of the criterion measure(s) and the

purpose(s) of the criterion measure(s) (CPA, 1996).

Reliabilitv

Reliabiiity refers to the extent to which variability in test scores is attributabie to the

variability on the construct measured by the test rather than measuement m o r (Meisels, 1984;

Rudner, 1994). Test-r~est reliability refers to the consistency in an individual's test scores when

hdshe is administered a test on two different occasions (Muphy & Davidshofer, 1994). Intemal

consistency reliability refers to the extent to which the items in a test masure the same consuuct

(Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). Other types of reiiabiiity include spiit-haif reliability, altemate

16

forms reliability, and inter-rater r e l i a b i (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; CPA, 1996; Murphy &

Davidshofer, 1994). Similsr to criterion-related validity, evaluabon of reliability wefficients needs

to take into account the decisions that wili be made based on the test scores (CFA, 1996; Murphy

& Davidshofer, 1994).

es of Scr-

The main purposes of developmental screens are identification of ctiildren who require

further developmental assessrnent to determine the presence of developmental delay(s) and the

identincation of children at risk for school problems, inchding development of leaming disabilities

and special education needs. According to Meisels (1984) in order to fulnU these two purposes

developmental screens rnust meet three critena in terms of constnia validity: they must provide a

measure of developmental skiils related to later leamhg problems that can negatively impact later

academic achievement; they must measure developmental tasks not specific learned knowledge or

skills ( U e a school readiness test would); and they mua provide a multidimensional measure of

general deveIopmentai status. When evaluating the appropriateness of a developmental screen's

construct validity for a particular purpose it is necessary to krmw what developmental problems to

screen for and if the screen provides a valid m e m e of those problems. It is also important to

know the targeted population and if the screen is valid for that pariidar population.

Developmental screens are used to classiS, cbiidren as either requiring m e r

develo pmental assessrnent or not requiring fùrther developmental assessrnent (Lichtenstein, 1 98 1 ;

Meisels, 1989). As such, it is imperative to evaluate the criterion-related validity, in particular

predictive validity, for the partidar decision(s) to be made with the screen (Lichtenstein, 198 1 ;

17

Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1 ; Meisels, 1984). Correlational analyses and classification accuracy

are two means of evaluating a developmental screen's criterion-related validity (Lichtenstein,

198 1 ; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1). Correlational analyses provide an index of how weli scores on

a developmental screen are related to scores on a criterion rneasue(s) (Lichtenstein, 1981).

Correlational analyses c m also be used to determine a developmental screen's convergent and

discriminant validity with other constnicts. Also factor d y s i s can be used to determhe the traits

measured by the developmentd screen (Lichtenstein, 198 1).

Classification accuracy provides an index of how well speciiïc cut-off scores on a

developmental screen are related to specific cut-off scores on a criterion measure(s) (Lichtenstein,

198 1; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991). In other words, classification accuracy indicates how

accurately a developmentd screen makes decisions regarding individuals, such as ident-g

which children require ftrther developmental assessment, predicting children's fùture acadernic

penormance and the possibitity of subsequent learning disabiiities (Lichtenstein, 1 98 1 ;

Lichtenstein & ireton, 1991).

The classincation accuracy of a screen can be measured by evaluating its sensitivity

(proportion of children correctly classineci as requirllig foliow-up assasment) and specificity (the

proportion of children comctly classified as not requiring follow-up assessment) (see Table 1).

Sensitivity and specificity values ranging from -70 to -80 are considered adequate for a fht-stage

developmental screen (Aylward, 1997; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1 ; Meisels, 1989) while

sensitivity ranging from -80 to -90 and specificiîy ranghg fiom .90 and higher aie considered

preferable (Aylward, 1997; Glascoe, Martin, & Humphrey, 1990; Glasme, Byme, Ashford,

Johnson, Chang, & Strickland, 1992).

Table 1

Criterion Measure Raults

Roblem

No Roblem

- -

+The proportion of children

identified as requiring foiiow-

up who were cotfectiy

identified.

Fdse Positives

+The proportion of children

identified as requiring foliow-

up who were incorrectly

identifieci.

Fuise Negatives

+The proportion of children

identifid as not requiring

foiiow-up who were correctiy

identiki.

. . - - - - -

+The proportion of children

identifleci as not requrùig

foilow-up who were

19

The classification error of a screen can be measured by evaluating its rate of false positives

(inwrrectly classiQing children as requiring foiiow-up assessment when they do not) and its rate

of false negatives (identifjing children as not requiring follow-up assessment when they do)

(Glascoe, Martin, & Humphrey, 1990; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1; Lichtenstein, 198 1 ; Meisels,

1984; Meisels, 1989). A screen with low sensitivity and a corresponding high rate of false

negatives (aiso known as underrefemals) is problematic because many children in need of fbrther

assessment and intervention services wiU be denied the appropriate services.

A screen with low specificity and a corresponding high rate of fdse positives (also kaown

as overreferrals) is problematic because providing wnecessary follow-up assessment can be costly

and t h e comming. Further, the possibility of causing harm due to inaccurate labeling must be

taken into consideration (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1).

Screens also require adequate reliabiiity to ensure that classification decisions made based

on the test scores are accurate (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1 99 1). However, with young children

meanirement error is expected to be rather high (Judy, 1986). For developmental screeas test-

retest reliability in particular is important to evaluate as it provides an estimate of the consistency

in classification decisiow (Lichtenstein Br Ireton, 1991).

Unfominately, despite the widespread use of developmental screens, there are few that

provide adequate evidence of validity and reliability for the purposes for which they are used

(Meisels, 1984; Meisels, 1989). Furthermore, of the screms that do provide some evidence

regarding thek psychometric characteristics, many do not have adequate validity and reliability for

the purposes for which they are used (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991; Meisels, 1984). The

inappropriate use of developmental screens for purposes for which they do not have adequate

20

validity and reiiability has been heady criticized (Schweinhart & Wehrt , 1986; Thurlow,

O'Sullivan, & Ysseldyke, 1986).

ISC P r r r

The Diagnostic Inventory for Screening Chiidren (DISC) was developed in 1988 by Kevin

Parker, Marian Mainland, and Jeannette Amdur as a second-stage deveiopmentaI s c r m Parker,

Mainland, and Amdur developed the DISC Preschool Screen @PS) as a fkst-stage developmental

screen after discoversg that the DISC was being misused in this way. They mastructeci the DPS

by using items fiom the DISC (Parker, Mainland, & Amdur, 1997).

The DPS measures the general developmentai status of children from birth to 60 months in

the domains of Language (Expressive and Receptive), Attention and Memory (Visual and

Auditory), and Motor SWs (Fine and Gross). The DPS, unlike the DISC, does not include the

domains of Self-Help and Sociai Skiils. Parker, Mainland, and Amdur (1997) stated that the

purpose of the DPS is to identify children who may have developmental delay in one or more

areas who require further developmental assessment. The DPS is designed to have higher

sensitivity than specificity in order to miss as few chiidren who may require assessment and

intervention as possible. The lower specscity is considered acceptable because second-stage

screening could be used to idente those children who were misclassified and provision of fbll

diagnostic assessment for those children can then be avoided.

The DPS can be administered by paraprofessionals and requires approximately ten to

meen minutes testing tirne. AU children wmplete twelve items, starting with the item that

corresponds to their age in months. The items are objectively scored @as, fail, refuse) with one

21

point given for each item passed. The points are summed for a total raw score out of twelve.

When cornputhg the total score, refùsals are counted as faiiures. Decisions regarding need for

referral for fûrther developmental assessrnent are based on the total score obtained: for children

who obtain a total score of eight or more, a referral is not recommended; for children who obtain

a total score of seven, a referral for a re-green with the DPS approximately two weeks later is

recommended; for children who obtain a total score of six or less, a refend is recommended. The

cut-off scores were set to match the percentage of at nsk children found in the population

(Parker, Mainland, & Amdur, 1997). The current version of the DPS @PS 3.0) is the result of a

number of pilot studies (over 1200 chiidren were tested) done to determine the best subset of

items in the DISC to include in the DPS (Parker, Mainland, & Amdur, 1997). To correct for a

ceiiing effect for older children scores are prorated: One point is subtracted from the total score

for children between the ages of 53 to 55 months; and two points are subtracted fiom the total

score for children between the ages of 56 to 60 months.

Examples of test items included in the DPS are: for 38 months, repeat short phrases read

by the examiner (Auditory Attention & Memory); for 42 months stand on one foot for three

seconds (Gross Motor); for 44 months draw a cross as demonstrated by the examiner (Fine

Motor); for 47 and 48 months, reconstruct cube designs modeled by the examiner (Visual

Attention & Memory); for 5 1, 52, & 53 months defining words (Expressive Language) and

identifying eight cornmon colours (Receptive Language) (Parker, Maialand, & Arndur, 1997)-

According to Parker, Mainland, and Amdur (1 997) the DPS has adequate validity,

reliability, and standardization for use as a first-stage developmentai screen. The manual cites a

correlation of -74 between RPS scores and a question which asked mothers if they beiieved their

22

cMd was developing normally as evidence for concurrent validity. Furthermore, the DPS scores

codd predict whether the mother believed her child was dweloping n o d y or not with a

sensitivity of 91% and a specincity of 76%. The same study also found a correlation of 0.64

between DPS scores and a question asking teachers to indicate if they had any con- regardhg

their student's dwelopment as evidence of concurrent validity. Additional evidence of validity is

the high item discrimination of each of the items. However, for children between the ages of 53 to

60 months item discrimination is lower. Parker, Mainiand, and Amdur (1997) reported in the DPS

manual that they were in the process of developing items with higher discrimination for this age

grou P.

In regards to construct validity, the DPS was designed to not be correlated with age.

Parker, Mainland, & Arndur (1997) attempted to choose cut-off scores that were independent of

age. In other words, regardiess of chiidren's age their total score can be interpreted the same way

and the same cut-off scores can be used to make referral decisions for fùrther devdopmental

assessment.

The DPS has a standard error of measurement of 1.22 indicating adequate reliability for a

fist-stage screen (Parker, Mainland, & Amdur, 1997). Further evidence of reliability cornes firom

a study of 87 children between the ages of 5 to 52 months that found the split-haifreliability

coUapsed across age groups to be -77 (Parker, Mainiand, & Amdur, 1997).

There is iimited research on the DPS' psychometric characteristics and its validity for

predicting school achievement. A brief summary of research on the psychometric characteristics

of the DISC will be provided in lieu of information on the DPS. The DISC can be used to

estirnate the DPS' psychometic characteristics due to the overiap in item content.

23

The DISC measures the developmental statu of chiidren fiom birth to 60 moIlths in the

same domains included in the DPS with the additional inclusion of SelfHelp aad Social Skilis.

The test is individuaiiy adrninistered and requires approxhately meen to forty minutes testing

t h e . The DISC, like the DPS, can be admùiisîered by paraprofessiods (Parker, Mainland, &

Arndur, 1990). The DISC is designed to have higher specificity than sensitivity, the opposite of

the DPS, to avoid providiig unnecessary diagnostic assessrnent to chüdren without developmental

delay(s) (Parker, Maidand, & Amdur, 1990). The percentile values and age equivalents, as well

as the decision regarding refenal based on the scores, is bssed on the normative data (Parker,

Mainland, & Arndur, 1990).

The test authors have provided evidence that the psychometric properties of the DISC are

adequate for its use as a second-stage screen. Parker, Mainland, and Arndur (1990) cited

correlations between DISC scores and age as evidence of construct validity. The DISC, unOre the

DPS, does not use the same cut-off score for ali ages, thus the test authors did not design the

DISC to be uncorrelated with age as they did the DPS. Furiher support of the construct vaiidity

of the DISC is a one factor solution denved fiom factor anaiysis of the sa l e scores which

suggested that the DISC meanires general development (Parker, Mainland, & Amdur, 1990).

Parker, Mainland, and Amdur (1990) cited a study that found the DISC s a l e scores have

moderate to high correlations (.41 to -84) with the Denver Developmentd Screening Test, the

overd Stanford-Binet, and Sattler's Binet scales as evidence of the DISC7s concurrent validity.

Further, there was moderate classification wngruency between the DISC s a l e classifications and

both the Denver classifications, and Binet classifications. However, the DISC was found to have a

higher referral rate than either the Denver or the Binet. AU children who were included in the

24

study had undergone fbst-stage screening and were referred for fùrther developrnental

assessment, thus it was concluded thaî the DISC's referral rate was most likely more accurate.

Further support for the DISC's concurrent validity cornes fiom a study cited by Parker*

Mainland, & Amdur (1990) that examine& how well professionds (a psychologist, a

psychometrist, a physiotherapist, a speech therapist, behaviour therapists, and resource teachers)

could discriminate between pairs of children with whom they were familiar based on their DISC

scale classifications, Denver classifications, and Stanford Binet classifications. It was found that

the professionds were able to discriminate ail of the pairs based on their DISC scale

classifications. In contrast, only 2 out of 1 1 pairs were discrimhted on the basis of their Denver

class5cations and 7 out of 9 pairs were discrùninated on the basis of their Binet classScations.

Hopchin and Enckson (1997) provided M e r evidence of the DISC7s concurrent validity.

Correlations between the DISC scaIes and subtests of the Minnesota Cbild Development

Inventory, a parent report developmentai status screen, ranged fiom -76 to -88.

Matthews (1993) examined the precüctive validity of the DISC using school achievement

as the criterion. The school achievement measures included the Mathematics Applications,

Reading Decoding, and Spelling subtests of the K a h a n Test of Educationd Achievement (K-

TEA). She included as predictors the DISC classifications for aii scales except Self-Help and

Social Skilis. The study included 46 preschoolers who had undergone fim-stage meening and

were referred for m e r developmental screening. The time between the initial screening and the

foilow-up screenulg varid fiom two to four years. The participants were fiom grades one, two,

and three. Predictive vaiidity of the DISC was assessed by correlational analysis and examination

of classification accuracy. Results indicated that the DISC scale classifications were related to the

25

academic achievement measures, with correlation coefficients rangkg f?om .25 to -73. Ali

correlations were signifcaut with the exception of the correlations between Auditory Attention

and Memory, and Reading Decoding (-25) and Speliing (-25); V i a 1 Attention and Memory, and

Reading Decoding (-33) and Speiling (-30). Overall, the DISC was found to have fairly high levels

of sensitivity and specificity for the three K-TEA subtests. However, the DISC scales were not

equally strong in terms of classification accuracy of the K-TEA subtests. The false negative rates

were generally higher than the fdse positive rates indicatiag that the DISC was more Wcely to err

in classifjing a child as not delayed than to m in class@ing a child as delayed. The classification

accuracy results are congruent with the intent of the test authors that the DISC have higher

specificity than sensitivity to avoid provicüng full diagnostic assessment to a large number of

children who do not require such assessment.

In regards to the DISC7s internai consistency reliabüity, each item was found to carrelate

highly with its own scale (Parker, Maidand & Amdur, 1990). Parker, Mainland, and Amdur

(1 990) reported that the DISC has high relüibility with split-hatf reliabiiity coefficients of scales

ranging f?om -98 to -99, inter-rater reliabiiiy coefiicients at -99, and test-retest reliability

coefficients, over a one-week interval, ranging fiom -94 to -98.

ï h e standardizabon sample of the DISC inchdeci 500 children and the normative sarnple

included 571 children (the former sample was teaed for the purposes of item development and

standardization of test procedures; the latter sample was tested after the final version of the DISC

was completed for the purpose of developing normative scores). The chüdren included in the

standardization and the normative samples were fiom South-Western Ontario, they were recruited

fiorn nursery schools, church nurseries, day care centres, YMCA and YWCA prograrns, and

26

personal contacts. Only chiidren '%th no apparent developmental delay" were included in either

the standardization or nonnative samples. The normative sarnple was chosen to match the 1971

and 1976 Canadian census data on the foIlowing variables: age, gender, ethnic group, urbanhral

residence, parents/guardians7 education level and occupation, parentdguardians' marital statu,

and head of household's job title (Parker, Mainland, & Amdur, 1990).

One factor &&.hg how successful eady identification programs are in meeting the5

objectives is the extent to which the screens used can meet those objectives. There is great

concern with the psychometric inadequacy that is typical ofmany screening instruments, including

those used in mass screening programs. Many do not have adequate psychometric properties to

just@ their use in such programs (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1986; Thurlow, O'Sullivan, &

Ysseldyke, 1986). Thurlow, O7Suiiivan, and Ysseldyke (1986) reported that only one-sixth of the

screens used by mode1 programs for early education of handicapped children have adequate

psychometnc properties. They concludeci that decisions based on technidy inadequate tests

must be questiuixd. Thus, it is important for any eady identification program to throughly

evaluate whether the psychometnc properties of the screens used are appropriate for their

intended use.

The purpose of administration of the DPS at Walden Fair Start was to identify chiidren

who rnay have developmental delay(s) that may negatively akct their academic achievement in

kindergarten. Parker, Mainland, and Amdur (1997) provided evidence that the DPS is a valid and

reliable developmental screen that can idente children at-risk for developmental delay(s).

27

However, there is no evidence that the DPS is a wüci aad reliable developmental screen that can

identm children at-risk for academic problems. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine

if the DPS is a valid and reliable m u e of general developmental statu that can serve the

purpose of Walden Fair Start. This is congruent with the emphasis in the psychometric literature

on the importance of providing evidence of validity for decisions and evaluation of reliabitity in

the conte- of the decisions that wiil be made with the test ( C P 4 1996; Murphy & Davidshofer,

1994) and if a test has lirnited validity evidence for a partidar purpose the anus is on the test

user to provide the necessary evidence (CPA, 1996).

Several hypotheses were proposed. First, it was hypothesized that the DPS has adequate

critenon-related validity (concurrent and predictive) for the intended purpose of Walden Fair

Start: provision of a masure of general development that can predict school achievement in

kindergarten.

Second, it was hypothesized that DPS scores would not be wrrelated with age, consistent

with DPS construct validity evidence cited by Parker, Mainiand, and Amdur (1997).

Third, it was hypothes~ed that the DPS has an adequate level of reliabiïty (test-retest

reliability, split-half reliability, and internai consistency reliabüity) for a first-stage developmental

screen.

Method

es Walden F

Walden Fair Start was organized by the Walden Play and Leam Cooperative, Inc. The

following information cornes Eom the director of the Walden Play and L e m Cooperative, Inc.,

Margaret Ignacy (Margaret Ignacy, p e r d communication, Sept. 13', 1999). The Walden Play

and Leam is a community-based organhtion whose mandate is to serve as a famiiy resource

centre for Walden ara families. The organizatio~ however, does make its services available to

families outside of Walden. The Walden Play and L e m is a not-for-profit organization nui by a

volunteer Board of Directors. There are six paid part-tirne staff and all parents who obtah

seMces fiom the organization are required to volunteer, in rome capacity, for a minimum of 10

hours per year. The organization relies on f'und-raising monies and extemal h d s to support its

programS.

The main services offered by the Walden Play and Leam include: a play group offered at

the Ben Moxam Cornmunity Centre; a mcrbile play group offered in Copper C e Lively,

Whitefish, and Beaver Lake; and a haif day nursery school. These seNices are offered on a regular

basis throughout the year. Other occasionai services provided by the Walden Play and Leam

include parent discussion groups as weli as workshops on child development and parenting topics.

The Walden Play and Leam implemented Fair Start to address the concem that the local

school boards no longer offered kindergarten developmental and modality screening. As a result

children's problems went undetected, sometirnes not being identified until the childrea

experienced dificulties in school.

29

The Walden Play and Lem's Board of Directors had idormation regarding the Fair Start

program implemented in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Walden Fair Start was modeled afier the Thunder

Bay Fair Start program.

Walden Fair Start was organized in a typical arena style set-up. Screming in vision,

hearing, speech-language, general development, dental, and nutrition was provided. AU screeners

and CO-ordinators who participated in Walden Fair Start were volunteen.

According to Ms. Ignacy, approximately 100 chiidren participated in Walden Fair Start.

The majority of cMdren were 3 to 4 years of age while some were below or above that age range,

the oldest being 6 years of age. Waiden Fair Start was targeted to children between 3 to 5 yean of

age.

Of the children who participated in Walden Fair Start, 39 children were sent for fbrther

assessments; a total of 69 fûrther assessments were recomrnended because some children had

multiple follow-up rewmmendations. Out of 97 chikiren (7 feedback foms were unavailable) the

number of referrals was 11 for general development, 11 for speech-language, 14 for hearing, 24

for vision, 5 for nutrition, and 4 for dental.

Parents of Waiden Fair Start attendees volunteered to have their child(ren) participate in

the screening. Al1 parents signed a release f o m giving permission to the Waiden Play and Leam

Cooperative to release screeming results for referral and research purposes. Forty-four children

(21 boys and 23 girls) who had attended Waiden Fair Start in May, 1998 and who enroiled in a

Walden area school in September, 1998 participated in the follow-up assessrnent (mean age=

30

60.52 months, SD= 7.94). Otha childrm who had participateci in Walden Fair Start were not

recmited for the study because either they were not school-age or they did not enroii in

kindergarten. There were 30 students in Junior Kindergarten, 11 students in Senior Kindergarten,

and 3 students in Grade one. Students were enrolled in either a French h e r s i o n program (16)

or an English program (28).

Twenty-nine students (14 boys and 15 girls) were also recruïted for cornparison purposes

(mean age= 60.72 months, SD= 6.65). There were 19 students in Junior Kindergarten and 10

students in Senior Kindergarten. No students in Grade one were selected because Walden Fair

Start was targeted to kindergarten students. Students were enroiied in a French Immersion

program (1 2) or in an English program (1 7). Principals were asked to request teachers to

randomly choose students who did not attend Walden Fair Start. The principal was asked that the

number of nonoWalden Fair Start attendees chosen fiom each class be based on the number of

Walden Fair Start attendees in the class.

There were two children who had received referral for developmentai assessrnent who did

not enroii in Junior Kindergarten as expected (Margaret Ignacy, persorid communication, n.d.).

There were an additional six Walden Fair Start attendees (none who received foiiow-up

recommendations) who did not participate in the foliow-up study because their parents did not

consent. Three children who were identified for the comparison sample did not participate

because theù parents did not provide consent.

The participants were enroiied in Walden areas schools that had be«i asked to participate

in Walden Fair Start. The schools were located in Lively, Naughton, and Whitefish. Walden is an

area municipality of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury. The t o m of Walden (population of

3 1

10, 269 as of the 1996 Census) includes the foiiowing comrnunities: Lively, Naughton, Whitefish,

Creighton Mine, and Worthington. The commercial center of Walden is Lively (population

2,400). Walden, with an area of 718.6 kmZ (306 square d e s ) , is the largest town in Canada.

Walden includes 3,66 1 households. The percentage of Walden's adult population that has attained

a college diploma or university degree is 25.6%. In 1995 Walden had the highest average incorne

in Canada, $28, 8 1 8 (Town of Walden . . .Naturaily, 1 999).

Copies of letters to principals, teachers, and parents describing the study andfor requesthg

consent are provided in Appendix A Ethics approvai was obtained fiom Laurentian University's

graduate research ethics committee, the Rainbow District School Board's research ethics

committee, and the Sudbury District Roman Catholic School Board's research ethics cornmittee-

Materials

DISC P r e W o l Screen. The DPS was the developmental status screen used at Walden

Fair Start. The DPS provides a total score and a classincation score. As suggested in the mamiai,

scores of 7 or lower were classified as requiring foliow-up assessment.

e Bo 01 VefSipn, The Boehm Test of Basic

Concepts, Preschool Version (BTBC-PV) developed by Ann E. Boehm (1986) is designed to test

preschool children's ( t h e to five years of age) receptive knowledge of basic relational concepts

(size, direction, position in space, quantity, and tirne). The BTBC-PV is a downward extension of

the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (BTBC) which cm be either group or individualiy

administered to chiidren 6om kindergarten to grade two. The test meesures howledge of twenty-

32

six concepts. There are two items measured per each concept for a total of sffy-two items

(Boehm, 1986).

The administration of the test is very simple. Examinees are shown black and white line

drawings while the examiner asks an accompanying question verbatim. Examinees indicate their

answer by pointing to the correct picture. For example, one of the warrn-up items shows three

teddy bears and the child is asked to "Point to the biggest bear". All examinees complete the

entire test regardless of age or ability level (Boehm, 1 986).

The manual recornmends two purposes which are appropriate for the BTBC-PV. One

purpose is for teachers to use test results to aid in designing individuaiized or group basic concept

instruction (Boehm, 1986). Another is the inclusion of the BTBC-PV in a school readiness

battery . In particular, the BTBC-PV caa be used as a screen for possible language delay. There is

evidence that children with language delay typically have diffidty learning basic concepts

@oehm, 1986). However, Boehm does caution against using the BTBC-PV as a sole measure for

evaluatuig school readiness or language delay Poehm, 1986; Stein, 1992). There is evidence that

the test has adequate validity and reliability to be used as a screen (Boehm, 1986; Oehler-Stinnett,

1992; Stein, 1992).

The scores wmputed for the BTBC-PV were: raw scores; T-scores; and percentiles.

However, T-scores and percentiies were not computed for pariicipants who were older than the

five years, zero months, and zero days age limit for the nonnative scores. Concept scores for each

individual concept measured in the test were not computed.

The BTBC-PV was included in this study as a measure of school achievement because it is

a meanire of acquired knowledge relevant to school achievement in the primary grades. There is

33

evidence which suggests that knowledge of basic relational concepts is related to kindergarten

readiness and school achievernent. Basic concepts have been found to be necessary for young

children to understand teachers' directions, instructional tessons and materials, in addition to

communicating efféctively with others (Boehm, 1986). The BTBC-PV can be considered to have

content validity for concept knowledge relevant to school achievement in the primary grades. Test

items were chosen based on carefbl review of curriculum materials, educatiod fiterature, and

tape-recorded teacher instruction (Boehm, 1986; Oehler-Stinnett, 1992; Stein, 1992). For

example, Boehm (1986) States in the BTBC-PV rnanual that analysis of tape recorded class

lessons and conversations between teachers and students found: '3eachers used over 70% of the

concept temis (including wann-up items) found in the Boehm-Preschool during their insauctionai

talk with children. Clearly, knowledge of basic concepts is necessary for preschoolers to comply

with teacher's verbal instructions in the classroom" (p. 18). There is also evidence that knowledge

of basic relational concepts is related to chiidren's performance on psychoeducational tests

(Boehm, 1986; Oehler-Stinnett, 1992).

ol The Teacher's School Readiness Inventory (TSRI)

developed by Manin Simner (1986) is a briec teacher completed five-item questioruiaire.

Teachers are asked to provide ratings of the mident's distractibiiity, atîention span, and mernory

span; verbal fluency, interest and participatioa; letter-identification skills; and printing skills. The

test is designed to be a first-stage screen used to ident* children in prekindergarten and

kindergarten who may be at risk for early school failure (Simner, 1986).

Simner (1 986) noted that teachers often mua ident* students who may require acadernic

34

services. It has been found that teacher's global judgements regarding students' academic

performance may be inaccurate predicton of school achievement during the primary grades. The

TSRI enables teachers to provide a more accurate judgernent with a fairly high predictive

accuracy (Simner, 1986). The TSRI is preferable to most other teacher report school achievement

questionnaires because it has less itetns, only includes items that past research has found to be

fairly highiy correlated to later school achievement (at least -50) (Do& 1995; Simner, 1986), and

has evidence regarding its validity for predicting school achievement (Simner, 1986).

AU five items of the TSRI ask teachers to rate the mident on a five-point rating scale. The

items do not have the same anchors for the five-point rating scale, however the rating d e is

ordered corn poor (1) to very good (5 ) . The scores cornputed for the TSRI are a total score and a

classification score. Three classifications are used to identw students: not at risk, low d d s of

being at risk, and high odds of being at risk. The classifications can be based on noms developed

by Simner or on l o d y developed noms. For this study, the total score and classifications were

used. The classifications and the 1997-1998 TSRI cut-off scores were based on local noms

developed by the Rainbow District School Board (Brian Burtt, personal wmrnunication, June

24&, 1999).

The TSRI was included in this study as a measure of school achievement because it

provides a measure of leamhg behaviours and abilities typically demonstrated in kindergarten.

The TSRi includes items that are fairly highly related to school achievement in the pr- yêars

(Doll, 1995; Simner, 1986) and considered to be important aspects of school readiness

(Colardarci, 1995).

35

Our The Behaviour Appendix to the TSRI was developed by the

Rainbow District School Board as a briec three item objective measure that asks teachers to rate

the fiequency with which the student engages in particuiar aggressive or oppositional-defiant

behaviours in class. The Behaviour Appendix is used as a first-stage meen to i d e n e students

who may have problems regarding aggression and oppositional-defiant behaviour (Brian Burtt,

persond communication, June 24a, 1999).

The three items of the Behaviour Appendk ask teachers to rate th9 studentys frequency of

negative behaviours (physical aggression towards classmates verbal aggression towards

classmates, and oppositiod-defiant behaviours directed towards teacher and other adult

authorities) on a five-point rating scale. The anchors for the five-point rating scale are: Very oRen

(daily incidents); Often (2-3 times a week); Ocwionally (1 tirne per week); Rarely (few times per

month); and Never. Thus, a high score on an item is positive, it indicates that the student never or

rarely engages in the negative behaviour described in the questionnaire item. Thus, the item scores

and total scores are congruent with the TSRI, with high scores indicating lack of difticulties. For

the Behaviour Appendix scores and classifications are computed sirnila, to those computed for the

TSRI.

School A teacher report questionnaire was developed to

obtaui a m e u r e of the students' cumnt school achievement (see Appenda B). The school

achievement questionnaire included items asking for the teacher's rating of the -dent's current

overaii school achievement as weU as hidher acbievernent of specific examples of the foUowing

acadernic areas: Language and Read'ig Skills, Math and Nurneracy Skiils, Perceptual-Motor

36

Skills, and Gross Motor SUS. In addition, the teacher was asked to judge the extent to which the

student typicaily displays specific examples of Classroom Learning Behaviours. The teacher was

also asked to rate how fiequentiy the student was absent and late for class. Questionnaire items

were chosen that were considered relevant to both Junior and Senior Kindergarten.

Other items regarding school performance were included in the questionnaire in order to

provide information that could be taken into consideration when evaluating the predictive validity

of the DPS. For example, one item asked ifthe student had been identifiai as having leamhg

problems andlor need of special education services.

The prllnary source consulted in construction of the questionnaire was Ihe Kindergarten

Progrmn (Ministry of Education and Training, 1998) which provides recommendations for

instruction and evaluation applicable to both Junior and Senior Kindergarten because the intent

was to design a measure of the students' actual kindergarten achievement. As such, attempt was

made to choose items congruent with a typical kindergarten program. In addition, the DPS and

items fkom other developmental screens, for example the Early Screening Inventory - Revised

(ESI-R), were reviewed as was literature regarding developmental milestones and nsk factors

associated with developmental delay during the preschool years to aid in construction of the

questionnaire.

The nine items included for the Classrmm Lcaniing Behaviours included five items taken

verbatim, with permission (Arthur Reynolds, personal communication, March 1999), from a

questionnaire developed by Reynolds, Mavrogenes, Bezruczko, and Hagernann (1996). Reynolds*

et al. (1996) used the questionnaire with students fiom grades one, two, and three. The items

chosen were those that could be considered patinent to kindergarten. The original rating scale

37

was modined to a five-point rating d e with the anchon: Never, Rarely, Occasiody, Often,

and Very oflen

Teachers were asked to rate the student's overd schooi achievement and their abiilities in

the individual academic domains on a three-point scale. An Overall Academic Skitls score was

computed as a mean of all these items, excluding the item asking for the teacher's rating of the

student's overaii academic achievement (aipha= -97). In addition, the same method was used to

compte scores for each of the individual school achievement domains: Language and Reading

S kills (alpha= -94); Math and Numeracy Slrills (alpha= -90); Perceptual-Motor Skills (alpha= -93);

Gross Motor Skiils (alpha= -75); and Classroom Leamhg Behaviours (alpha= -90).

Parent auestiannaire. The questionnaire included items regarding home leaming

environment and demographic characteristics of the parent(s) (see Appendii C). Furthemore, the

home learning environment items included items for the foilowing subdomains: literacy, help with

learning, school involvement, encouragement, and attitudes towards education Two of the home

leamhg enviromnent items were takeu verbatim fiom the Henderson Environmentai Leaming

Process Scale (HELPS) (Henderson, Bergan, & Hun, 1972 as cited in Curtis & Singh, 1997).

Home leamkg environment and demographic characteristics were chosen for inclusion in the

questionnaire because research has found that these variables are related to whether parents chose

to participate in and wmply with early cbildhood programq including early identification andior

intervention programs (Gavidia-Payne & Stoneman, 1997; Reynolds, Mavrogenes, Bemiczko,

Hagemann, 1996; Reynolds & Temple, 1998). Respondents were asked to answer the home

learning environment items on a five-point scale. An overall Home Leamllig Environment score

was computed as a mean of al1 the five-point scale items (alpha= -56).

Another purpose of the parent questionnaire was to gather idormation that would be

pertinent to the evaluation of the prediaive validity of the DPS. For example, parents of children

who received foliow-up resuhs on the DPS at Walden Fair Start were asked questions regarding

receipt of follow-up assessrnent andior services, presence of other impairments that rnay have

influenced their chiid' s DPS results at Waldm Fair Start, as well as if they infomied the school of

the child' s results and/or asked the teacher to provide extra help to their child. AU parents who

attended Walden Fair Start were asked for theu judgement of their child's pefionaance on the

DPS at Walden Fair Start. Categorical variables were computed for the dernographic information

obtained fiom both the respondent and the other parent/guardian.

Procedure

The DPS was administered by students

from the Human Development Masters program at Laurentian University. The testing took place

at individual testing stations located in one room The testing stations consistecl of a child shed

table with two child sized chairs as weU as addt sized chairs for the accompanying parents.

Testing times ranged from 10 to 25 mimites. The DPS was administered and scored according to

instructions in the DPS manual. Immediately following test administration, the chiid's total score

was cornputed and cornrnunïcated to the parent(s). The foliow-up recommendation decision was

also provided, but not the total score, on a Parent Feedback Form. Children whose total score

was 7 or less were given recommendation for follow-up developmental assessment.

39

In-school testinpDrocadurrs. Testing took place during regular classroom houn. Testing

was individual, conducteci in a quiet room with a table and at les t two chairs. Participants either

completed only the BTBC-PV or bot& the BTBC-PV and the DPS. Testing times ranged fiom 20

to 45 minutes. AU participants were allowed to play with a p d e or activity page prior to

completing the test(s). The BTBC-PV was aiways administered fist. The DPS was administered

to all non-Walden Fair Start attendees. For examination of test-retest reliability, the DPS was

administered to a sample of Junior Kindergarten participants who had attended Waldai Fair Start.

T e a c k m e Teachers completed the TSRI and Behaviour Appmdi in February,

1999 as part of the early identification procedures implemented by both the Rainbow District

School Board and the Sudbury District Roman Catholic School Board. Current TSRI total scores

and curent Behaviour Appendix total scores were procured for the JK and SK participants.

Teachers completed the school achievement questionnaire for each participant enroiied in their

clas.

Parent Parent questionnaires were administered by phone to one

parent/guardian. The phone intemews took approximately fifteen minutes each. Prior to

administe~g the questionnaire the inte~ewer askd to speak to the parent/guardian who had

signed the consent form. Then she stated her name and explained that she was the Lamentian

University student doing the study on Walden Fair Start that the parent/guardian had given

permission for h ide r child(ren) to participate in.

Results

The results are presented in three sections. The nnt provides descriptive astistics,

correlational analyses, and exploratory gender cornparisons in order to characterize the

participants. The second provides results of the DPS' validity and reliabiiity analyses. Lady,

results of sample selection bias analyses are presented.

The study's primary sarnple consisteci of the children who had attendeci Walden Fair Start.

The other children were recnllted to puMe the research questions regarding sarnple selection

bias. As such, descriptive statistics WU be presented separately for Walden Fair Start aîtendees

and non-Walden Fair Start attendees.

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the DPS and school achievement measUres.

Most participants had high scores on the DPS and theu scores on the school achievement

measures ranged from average to above average. They were not at risk for developrnental

delay(s), their school achievernent was average, their knowledge of basic concepts was above

average, and they were not at-risk for school failure or behaviour problems.

Frequencies for the DPS classifications, school achievement questionnaire items, TSRI

and Behaviour Appendix classifications are also presented (see Table 3). Most participants were

not at-risk for developmental delay(s), few were either idenbfied as having learning problems or

as being iikely to have problems in school and most were not at risk for school Mure or

behaviour problems. One school achievement questionnaire item asked teachers to compare

Table 2 bv W-

&uimdmx

Wdden DPS

In-School DPS

Overaii

Language

Math

Perceptual-Motor

Cross Motor

Behaviours

btiag

BTBC-PV Raw Scores

BTBC-PV T-scores

BTBC-PV Percentiles

JK TSRI

JK Behaviour

SK TSRI

SK Behaviour Note: WFS reférs to Waldcn Fair Start attrPslees and NWFS rcfas to non-Waldcn Fair Start attaidacs. Note: the total score for tbe Waidai Fair Start DPS is missing for oae participant Note: Walden DPS refcrs to Waiden DPS total scores and InScho01 DPS rcfas to in-school DPS total SCOTCS.

Note: O v d refas to O v d Acadcmic S u s con, Language =fers to Languege and Readiag Skills rorcs; Math rcfm to Math and Nurneracy S W scores, P~nceptual-Motor refas to PcrccpMl-Motof S W w, Gros Motor refas ta Grws Motor Skiiis meq Bebaviours refas to the Ciassram Learning Bcbriviuurs -, and Rating refm to raicha's rating of achievement. AU of thcx scores wac cornpuid h m itans an the Scbool Achievcmcnt Qucsticmak. Note: JK TSRI refas to JK TSRI total scarcs and SK TSFU rrférs to SK TSRI total score. Note: JK i3ehaviour rcfas to JK Behano~lf Appardix total scotcs and SK Bchaviour mfas to SK Ekhaviour Appcndix total scores.

Table 3

Frequencies

WFS NWFS

FoUow-up No Foiiow-up Follow-up No FoUow-up

Waldea DPS 8 36 - - In-School DPSn O 18 5 24

No Risk Low High No Low High Odds Odds Risk Odds Odds

JK TSRI 35 1 O 23 1 1

JK Behaviour 35 1 O 24 1 O

SK TSRI 13 O 1 8 O 1

SK Behaviour 13 1 O 9 O O

Identifid Leaming 4 39 O 27 Pro blems

P roblems ia School 2 40 3 24

Sügbt Sigoificant Süght Si-clat hpmvcrncnt Improverncnt Improvement Impnwcmcnt

Corn parison 29 14 17 10 Note: WFS refers to Wddai Fair Start attendees and NWFS refers to non-Waldai Fair S m anaidecs. Note: In-School DPS , only 4 out of îhe 8 childm who received foIiow-up rec~mmaidations at Wald- Fair Start wac included in the test-cetest samplc. Note: Walden DPS refas to Waldcn DE5 classifications (foliow-up rec~mmaideû and no follow-up rec~mmendcd) and In- School DPS refers to in-school DPS classifications (foiiow-up rccommcndcd and no foliow-up &). Note: JK TSRI refers to JK TSRI classincatioru (no risk, low odds risk, and high odds risk) and SK TSRi tcfas to SK ?SRI c la s s i f i~ons (no ri&, low odds ri* and high odds risk). Note: JK &baviour refa. to JK Bchiviour Appcndix ciassiIlcations (no ri&, low oddr ri&, anci hi@ &*&) and SK Behaviour refers to SK Bebavîour Appendix classifications (no ri&, Iow odds und hi@ oddP ri&). Note: Identified Learning Roblans rcfas to the Schwl Achievancnt Questionnaire item that asked kachers if the participant had been identifid as having leaming problans andior & of special abcation savices. Note: Problans in SchooI rcfen to the Schml Achicvanait QuestionnairC item ?bat asked teschers their opinion regardhg whether the participant wiU havc pob1ans in school driring curraû or future school years. Note: Cornparison ref- to wmparison of participant's currart o v d school achievancnt to his/ha ovadl school achievement at the b q b t h g of the shwl year.

43

participants' m e n t overall school achiwement to their overaii school achiwement at the

beginning of the year. The item had a five point scale ranging firom has significantly declined to

has significantly irnproved. AU participants were rated by their teacher as having either slightly

improved or signiscantly irnproved.

The distributions of scores for the DPS and school achievement measures were found to

be skewed, with the exception of BTBC-PV T-scores and teacher's rating of achiwernent (skew

ratios ranged fiom 1 -86 to -9.22). The DPS total scores, the BTBC-PV raw scores, BTBC-PV

percentiles, Junior and Senior Kindergarten TSRI total scores, Junior and Senior Kindergarten

Behaviour Appendix total scores, and the Classroom Leaming Behaviours scores were negatively

skewed. Most participants had average to above average scores on these variables. The Overail

Academic SWs scores, Language and Reading Skiils scores, Math and Numeracy Skills scores,

Perceptual-Motor Skills scores, and the Gross Motor Skills scores were positively skewed. Most

participants had average scores on these variables.

Due to the skewness of the variables for the predictive validity, conairrent vaiidity,

construct validity, and sarnple selection bias analyses for the midents, both parametric and non-

parametric analyses were perfomed. Results of the parametnc and non-parametic analyses were

compared and some differences were found. Thus, the results of the non-parametnc analyses are

reported.

In order to disceni the pattern of relationships arnong the various academic dornains

measured by the school achievement questionnaire, Spearman Rank Order correlations were

computed with data nom di participants, those who had attended Walden Fair Start and those

who had not (see Table 4). Scores fiom the school achievement questionnaire were d positively

conelated with each other and to teacher's rating of achievement. The positive correlations are

evidence that the items iucluded in the school achievement questionnaire provide a homogenous

measure of school achievement. The moderate positive correlations with teacher's rating of

achievement is evidence that the questionnaire provides a good estirnate of students' school

achievement .

Table 5 shows the pattern of relationships between the various school achievement

rneasures. Spearrnan Rank Orda correlations were computed with data fiom ail participants,

those who had attended Walden Fair Start and those who had not. The moderate positive

correlations between Overd Academic Skills scores and BTBC-PV raw scores in addition to

TSRI total scores provide support that the various academic dornains are vaiid rneasures of school

achievement.

There are also other notable correlations. Participants who had high Language and

Reading Skills scores Likewise had hi& BTBC-PV raw scores and TSRI total scores. This would

be cxpected due to simüarity in item content. Spedically, the Lsaguage and Reading S U S

domain includes items rneasuring receptive language and language cumprehension as does the

BTBC-PV. Also, the Language and Reading Skills domain includes items m&g expressive

language as does the TSRI.

Table 4

Cross Motor

Ra ting

Cornparison 1 -00 Note: p<-01, *" pe.001. Note: Language refers to Language and Reading Skik scores; Math refas to Math and Numeracy SkiUs mms, Percepniai- Motor refas to Pe!rceptual-Motor Skïiis scores, Gros Motor refns to Grass Motor Skiils w, Behaviours refcrs to the Classroom Leaniing Behaviours scores, aud Ratïng refm to micher's rating of achievanent. Ail of these scores wac computed h m items on the School Achievanart Questionnaire. Note: CompaRson refers to cornphon of the participaut's cirneot overail xhool tichievanait to hifier o v d schml achievement at the beginning of the school year (siight improvanat and sisnifiant improvement).

Table 5 earman Rank Or& Corr e v w Chi e Scores

BTBC-PV. TSRI. B a u r Scores

BTBC-PV BTBC- PV JK TSRI SK TSRI JK Behaviour SK Raw Score T-scorr Behaviou r

Overail

Language

Math

Perceptuai- Motor

Gross Motor

Behaviours

Rating

Cornparison

Note: , ~ . 0 5 , ** F.01, *** p<.001. Note: Overail refers to O v d Academic S W score; Languagc rcfers to Language and Reading S U scores, Math refers to Math and Numeracy Skills scores-, Perceptual-Motor refas to Ferrephial-Motm Skilis scores; Gros Motor referç to Gross Motor Skiils scores; Behaviours refers to the C k o o r n Learning Behaviours sforeq and Rating refas to teacher's rating of achievement. Ail of these scores were computed h m items on the School Achievement Questionnaire. Note: JK TSRI refers to JK TSRi total scores and SIC TSRI refers to SK TSRI total xnres. Note: K Behaviour refas to JK Behaviour ~ppaidix total scores and SIC Behaviour refas to SK Behaviour Appendi~ total scores. Note: Cornparison refers to cornparison of the participant's current overall school achievement to hidher o v d school achievement at the bghnhg of the xhool year (slight improvanent and significant improvement).

47

Participants who had high Classroom Learning Behaviours scores likewise had high Behaviour

Appendix total scores. In other words, participants who typidy displayed good work habits and

social skills typically did not engage in aggressive or oppositional-defiant behaviours. Also,

participants who had high JK Behaviour Appendix scores were rated by their teacher as having

significantly improved their overd xhool achievement in cornparison to the begirmiag of the

year. in other words, students who did not engage in aggressive or oppositional-defiant

behaviours tended to be rated by their teacher ' s as having sigdicantly improved academically .

As an exploratory analysis Mann-Whitney tests were conducted comparing boys and girls

on the school achievernent measures (see Table 6). There were few sex differences found but

those found favored girls. Girls were found to have significantiy higher median scores than boys

ori JK TSRI total scores, JK Behaviour Appendix total scores, Classroom Leaming Behaviours

scores, and teacher ' s rating of achievement .

Crosstabulations were also computed comparing boys and girls on their DPS

classifications, TSRI and Behaviour Appendix classifications, and the school achievernent

questionnaire items (see Table 7). A significant crosstabulation was found for tacher's opinion

regarding whether the participant wiil have problems in school during m e n t or future school

years (XZ' 5.55). Ali five participants whose teacher indicated they may have problems in school

were boys (5 (1000/o) vs. O (O%)). However, there was little difference in the numbers of boys (29

(45 -3%)) versus girls (3 5 (54.7%)) whose teachers indicated they were Wrely to not have

problems in school. Of the 34 boys, there were 5 (14.7%) whose teachers indicated they were

Table 6

Boys Girls

Walden DPS

In-School DPS

Overail

Language

Math

Perce ptual-Mo tor

Gross Motor

Behaviours

Rating

BTBC-PV Raw Scores

BTBC-PV T-scores

BTBC-PV Perccntiies

JK TSRl

JK Behaviour

SK TSRI

SK Behaviour 10.60 (n= 10) 13.08 (n= 13) -.96 p < -05, ** p <.O1

Note: Walden DPS refers to Walden DPS total scores and fnschool DPS mfen to in-school DPS total çcarrs.

Note: Overail tefers to O v d Academic Skiils m, Language refas to Laneuage and Reading S U m. Math refm to Math and Nmeracy SlgUs Pcrccpnial-Motor refcn to Paccptud-Mota S U S s~oers; Gmsr Motor rcfa to Omss Motor S u s scoreq Behaviom rcfm to the Classmom k a m b g ~ehaviant sxrcs and Rating mfen to t a s h a ' s mthg of achievanait. AU of t h e saxes wcrc computed 6om itans on the School Acbie~~mdlt QucstidllLldirC. Note: JK TSRI refas to JK TSR? total scorts and SK TSRI rcfas to SK TSRI total SCO~CS- Note: JK Behaviour refers to JK Behaviour Appendix total scats aad SK Bchavïour &as to SK Behaviour Appmdix total scores.

Table 7 C r o a R e m C c on No-1

- - --

Cramer's V Significrrace Level -

Walden DPS -26 p> -057

Ln-School DPS -25 p> .05f

JK TSRI -25 p> .05**

JK Behaviour -20 p) -05t

SK TSRI -35 p> -057

SK Behaviour -24 p> .O57

Identified Learning Problems .O07 p' -05t

Problems in School -28 p<.05t

Corn parison .O2 p> . O S Note: for hkro by tuv tables which includcd less than two ceiis with cxpacted hqwncies l e s than 6ve, the signiauincc level for Cramer's V was reporteci. Note: ** for tables that were larger than two by two, the significance level for Cramer's V was reported Note: for two by two tables which included two or more ceils wiîh expectd ûequencies less than five, the sisnifiance level for Fisher's exact test was reported Note: Walden DPS refas to WaIdai DPS classifications (foiiow-up fecommended and no foliow-up rec~mmaided) and In- School DPS refers to in-school DPS classific(~tions (foUow-up tecommeaded and w follow-up recommended). Note: JK TSRI refers to JK fSRï clasnncaîions (no risk, low ris4 and high ri&) and SK TSRI refas to SK TSRI classifications (no risk, low ri&, and hi& risk). Note: JK Behanour refas to JK fwiaviour Appcndix classifications (no low ri&, and high ri&) and SK Bchaviour rcfas to SK Behaviour Appendix classifications (no ri&, low risk, and hi@ tisk). Note: Identifieci Learning Problans nfcrs to the School Achievcmcnt Qucstioadrc itan that asLcd tcachas if the participant had beai identified as having learaing pmbIans aod/or nacd of special aiucation SCrYices. Note: Problems in School nfas to the School Achievenmt Qucstiomak item tbat askd teschers their opinion regarding wfiether the participant will have problcms in school during currait or hîm school years.

50

likely to have problems in school versus 29 (85.3%) whose teachers indicated they were likely to

not have problems in school. Of the 35 girls, there were none (û%) whose teachers indicated they

were iikely to have problems in school versus 35 (1000h) whose teachers indicated they were

likely to not have problems in school. None of the other crosstabulations were significant.

. . Validrty and

Analyses perfomed to examine the DPS' validity and reliability includeà data fiom ail

participants who were administered the DPS at Walden Fair Start and/or the in-school testing.

The exception to this procedure was for the DPS' predictive and concurrent validity analyses

involving TSRI and Behaviour Appendix variables which were done separately for K

participants and SK participants.

. . . . redictive v- Predictive validity was examinai by cornputhg Spearman Rank Order

correlations between DPS total scores fiom Walden Fair Start and the school achievement

measures (see Table 8). Moderate predictive validities for Overall Academic Skills scores,

Language and Reading Sicüis scores, and teacher's rating of achievement were found.

For K participants, the Walden Fair Start DPS total scores were signiiicantly correlated

with their JK TSRI total scores (rho= -36, p< -05, n= 28) but not with theu JK Behaviour

Appendix total scores (rhw -.Oz, p> -05, n= 28). For the SK participants, the Walden Fair Start

DPS total scores were significantly correlated to theu SK TSRI total scores (rho= .56, p< -05, n=

1 1) but not to their SK Behaviour Appendix total scores (rho= -1 7, p> .OS, n= 1 1).

Table 8 for S s

- -

Wddcn DPS -

In-School DPS

Language .35* (n= 43) -22 (n= 47)

Math -23 (n= 43) -23 (n= 47)

Percep tuai-Mo tor .23 (n= 43) .O8 (n= 47)

Gross Motor .O06 (n= 43) .32* (n= 47)

Behaviours -26 (n= 43) -20 (a= 47)

Rating .26* (n= 43) .3 1 * (n= 47)

BTBC-PV Raw Scores -1 5 (n= 42) .34* (n= 45) Note: p< -05 Note: Spearman Rank Or& correlations arc qorted in table. Note: Walden DPS r e f a to Walden DPS total scorrs and in-School DPS refers to in-schwl DPS total scores. Note: Overd refers to Ovadi Acadanic S k i k scofe', W e refers to Language and Reading Skills scores, Math refas to Math and Numeracy Skih scoreq Perceptual-Motor refers to Percepual-Motor Skills scores; Gros Motor refers to Gros Motor Skiüs scores., Behaviouis nfers to the Classroom Leaming Behavïours scores, ami Rating refns to teacha's rating of achievsment. AU of these scores wae computed h m items on the School Achievement QMsstio~aire.

52

in addition, predictive vaiidity was examine& by perfonning crosstabuiations between

Walden Fair Start DPS classifications and the school achievement questionnaire items. Results of

the statistical tests for the crosstabulations, Pearson chi square statistic as weli as Fisher's exact

test statistic were examined (the latter was examined when the crosstabulation included two or

more cells out of four with expected ûequencies less than five; it was not computed for

crosstabulations with more than four cells). In addition, the classi£ication accuracy, specifically

sensitivity, specificity, false positives, and false negatives, of the Walden Fair Start DPS in

predicting the school achievement questionnaire items was computed. Sensitivity refers to the

proportion of participants who were identifiecl as requiring foliow-up assessment who were

correctly identified as requiring foliow-up assessment. S p d c i t y refers to the proportion of

participants who were not identified as requiring foliow-up assessment who were comectly

identified as not requiring foiiow-up assessment. False positives refers to the proportion of

participants who were identified as requiring foliow-up assessment who were incorredy

identified as requiring foliow-up assessment. False negatives refers to the proportion of

participants who were not identined as requiring follow-up assessment who were incorrectly

identified as not requiring foliow-up assessment.

The crosstabulation between the Walden Fair Start DPS classifications and whether the

participant had been identified as having learning problems andlor need of special ducation

seMces was not signifiant (f= 3.68, Fisher's= p .OS). The classification accuracy for this item

was: sensitivity 50%, specincity 87.296, fdse positives 71.43%, and fdse negatives 5.56%.

The crosstabulation between the Walden Fair Start DPS classifications and the tacher's

opinion regarding whether the participant will have problems in school was not significant (X4.

.42, Fisher's= p> .OS). The classification accufacy for this item was: sensitivity 0, specincity

82.5%, false positives 1 Wh, and fiilse negatives 5.71%.

The crosstabulation between the Waiden Fair Start DPS classifications and the item asking

teachers' to compare the participant's m e n t overaii school achievement to their school

achievement at the beginniag of the year was not significant -05, cramer's F -10, p> .OS).

The classincation accuracy for this item was: sensitivity 20.69%, specincity 85.71%. fdse

positives 25%, and false negatives 65.71%.

For the IK participants crosstabulations performed bnween Walden Fair Start DPS

classifications and the IK TSRI and JK Behaviour Appendix classifications were not significant

kk -27, Fisher's= p> -05 and f= .27, Fisher's= p> .OS respectively). For the JK participants, the

classification accuracy of the Walden Fair Stan DPS in predicting their JK TSRI classifications

(not at risk and low odds of being at risk) was: sensitivity 0, specifïcity 7%' false positives

100%, and false negatives 4.3 5%. The accuracy of the Walden Fair Start DPS in predicting JK

Behaviour Appendix classifications (not at risk and low odds of being at nsk) was: sensitivity 0,

specificity 79%. false positives 1 O&, and false negatives 4.3 5%.

For the SK participants crosstabulations perfomied between Walden Fair Start DPS

classifications and the SK TSRI and SK Behaviour Appendix classifications were not signifiant

(X2= -24, Fisher's= p -05 and f= -24, Fisher's= p> -05 respectively). For the SK participants, the

classification accuacy of the Wdden Fair Start DPS in predicting their SK TSRI classi6cations

(not at nsk and high odds of being at risk) was: sensitivity 0, specincity 80%, false positives

100%' and false negatives 1 1.1 1%. The accuracy of the Walden Fair Start DPS in predicting SK

Behaviour Appendii classifications (not at risk and low odds of being at risk) was: sensitivity O,

54

specificity 80%, false positives 1000/o, and false negatives 1 1.1 1%.

In summary, the Walden Fair Start DPS was found to have moderate predictive validity

for Overali Academic Skills scores, Language and Reading Slcilis swres, teacher's rating of

achievement, and TSRI total scores. However, the Walden Fair Start DPS' classification accuracy

for the school achievement questionnaire items and the TSRI and Behaviour Appendix

classifications was inadequate. W~th the exception of the item regarding whether the participant

had been identified as having l e h g problems and/or need of special education seMces and the

item regarding improvement in overaii school achievement, sensitivity was zero whereas

specificity was p a t e r than 79Oh.

Co- . .

Concurrent validity was examineci by computing Spearman Rank

Order correlations between in-school DPS total scores and the school achievement masures (see

Table 8). Moderate concurrent vahdity for BTBC-PV raw scores, Gross Motor S u s scores, and

teacher's rating of achievement was found.

For the JK participants the in-school DPS total scores were not signincantly correlated to

their JK TSRI total scores (ho= .OZ, p> .OS, n=34) or their JK Behaviour Appendix total scores

@ho= -.04, p> -05, n=34). Similarly, for the SK participants the in-school DPS total scores were

not significantly correlated to theu SK TSRI total scores (rho= -25, p> -05, n=IO) or to their SK

Behaviour Appendix totd scores (rho= .23, p> -05, n=10).

In addition, concurrent validity was examine& by performing crosstabulations between the

in-school DPS classihtions and the school achievement questionnaire items. The crosstabulation

between the in-school DPS classifications and whether the participant had been identified as

55

having leamhg problems a d o r need of special education seMces was not sigdicant (f= .32,

Fisher's= p> -05). The classification accuracy of the in-school DPS for this item wax sensitivity O,

spedicity 90 -24%' fdse positives 1 O%, and false negatives 7.50%.

The crosstabulation between the in-school DPS classifications and whether the participant

will have problems in school was sigaificant k2= 9.78, p< .O 1, Fisher's= p< -05). However, the

crosstabulation included three out of four celis with expected fkequencies less than five. The

~Iassification accuracy of the in-school DPS for this item was: sensitivity 66.67%, specificity

92.68%, false positives 6 W , and false negatives 2.56%.

The crosstabulation between the in-school DPS classifications and the item asking

teachers' to compare the participant's current overaii school achievement to their school

achievement at the beginnïng of the year was not sipifiant (f= -05, cramer's v= -10, p> .05).

The classification accuracy for this item was: sensitivity 10.71%, specificity 94.12%, false

positives 25%, and false negatives 60.98%.

In addition, for the JK participants the crosstabulation performed between the in-school

DPS classifications and JK TSRI classifications was signifiicant (;C2= 7.81, cramer's v= -48, p<

-05). However, the crosstabulation included five out of six ceils with expected fiequencies less

than five. The crosstabulation between the in-school DPS classifications and JK Behaviour

Appendix classifications was not signifiant ( f= 7.73, Fisher's= p> .OS). For the JK participants,

the classification accuracy of the in-school DPS in predicting JK TSRI classincations (dl three

classifications were included in the crosstabulation; for computation of classification accuracy low

odds of being at nsk and bigh odds of being at nsk were combined) was: smoitivity Sm,

specificity 90.63%, false positives 7596, and false negatives 3.33%. The accuracy of the in-school

56

DPS in predicting JK Behviour Appendk classifications (not at risk and low odds of being at

risk) was: sensitivity 1000?%, specificity 90.9 1%, fdse positives 75%, and false negatives 0.

For the SK participants the crosstabulation between the in-school DPS classifications and

SK TSRI classifications was not si* (f= 10.00, p< -01, Fisher's= pz .05). The

classification accuracy of the in-school DPS in predicting SK TSRI classifications (not at risk and

high odds of being at risk) was: sensitivity 100°/o, specificity 10û%, false positives O, and fdse

negatives O. The crosstabulation between the in-school DPS classifications and the SK Behaviour

Appendix classifications wuld not be computed as no participants received recommendation for

follow-up developmental asxssment and none were at risk for behaviour problems.

The in-school DPS was found to have moderate concurrent validity for BTBC-PV raw

scores, Gross Motor Skiüs scores, and teacher's rating of achievement. These results are evidence

that the in-school DPS can provide Iimited prediction of school achievement. The in-school DPS

had 100% sensitivity for JK Behaviour Appendix classi.fïcations and SK TSRI classifications.

However, as was the case with the Walden DPS ' predictive validity, the in-school DPS'

classification accuracy for the school achievement questionnaire items was incongruent with what

would be ideal for a fïrst-stage screen, with sensitivity being lower than specificity. With this

sampIe, both the Walden Fair Start DPS and the in-school DPS were better at identifjing

participants without academic problems (Le. higher specificity) than it was at identifying

participants with academic problems (Le. lower sensitivity).

57

As few participants received follow-up recommendations at Walden Fair Start and the in-

school testins examination of pertinent descriptive statistics was done to supplernent the

criterion-related validity analyses reported. Tbere were eight children who raived foliow-up

recommendations at Walden Fair Start (see Table 9). Four of those children were includeâ in the

test-retest sampte (children 2,3,4, and 8). Two children received scores of 7 (chiidren 3 and 8). It

is expected that these children would obtained a higher score when re-tested. Parker, Mairtland, &

Amdur (1997) suggest that childm who obtain a score of 7 should be re-adrninistered the DPS in

approximately one month because it is iikely they wüi obtain a higher score the second time. As

expected, these children cbtained a higher score on the DPS when retested in-school(10 and 8

respectively). These children were rated as having average school achievement and as having

irnproved slightly in cornparison to the beginning of the school year, most of their school

achievement scores were average, they were being promoted to the next grade, their teachers did

not anticipate that they would experience problems in school in the fiiture, and they were not at-

risk for school Mure or behaviour problems. Child 8 did not receive extra help in class from

his/her teacher, child 3 did receive extra help in class fiom hider teacher. Both of the chiidren

were hearing impaireci and were receiving seMces for his/her impairment.

There was another chüd in the test-retest sample who was hearing impaired and was

receiving services for hidher impairment (child 4). He/she received a score close to the cutsff on

the Walden DPS (6) and obtained a higher in-school DPS score (9). It is reasonable to expect

c hildren who receive scores close to the cut-off to obtain a higher in-school DPS score if they had

improved during the months prior to the in-school testing. He/she was rated as having average

Table 8

1 58 7 67 NIA No Yes No No NIA Avg sliohl No No No No 2.33 2.10 2.50 2.33 3.00 Ri& Ri& msk

2 53 5 76 8 NIA* Yes No NIA* NIA* Avg Sliohl No No NIA NIA 2.1 1 2.10 2.00 2.22 2.00 Ridc Ri&

3 53 7 63 10 Ycs Yes No Ycs Ycs Avg Sliph' NIA NIA No No 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Risk Risk

4 53 6 61 9 Yes Yes NIA* Ycs Yes Avg No No NIA NIA 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2,00 Ri& RUk

5 46 7 55 NIA Yes Yes No No No Avg Sliehl No No NIA NIA 2.13 2,00 2.50 2,W 2,ûû Ri31 Ri&

6 44 4 55 NIA No Ycs No No No Avg s'enifiml No No NIA NIA 1.92 2.00 2 . 0 1.78 2.00 Ri& Ri&

7 48 4 57 NIA No Ycs No No No Avg simifiml No No NIA NIA 1.88 2.13 1.50 1.89 2,ûO Hisk ri&

8 46 7 55 8 No Ycs No No No Avg No No NIA NIA 1,74 1.70 2.00 1.56 2.00 Wiwk Hisk

Nok: UYS I refm to Wilden UYS total scores uid O B 2 rcfm Io in-scbl IIPS total scorcy; Agc I wfcni tu ige in monh al tho tim of Walûcn 1:air Slut lcsling and Age 2 refm Io aga in manhs ri ihc timc ofîhe in-rchool testing; Extra Hclp refm to the item asking t c a c h i f Chcy proviûcd iha puticiprnl wilh m a hclp wiîh school lulu, Romotim rcfm to wheiher îho pwiicipmî w u bcig p m e d to the ncxt gnde; Problm refm Io ihc Schoot Achicvn~nt Qucstionnrire item (hrt aakcd terchcrs ihcir opinion reguding w W the puticiprnt will have p o b l m in h l during wrrcnt or Aiium ichool yeirs, Idcntificd rcfm to &O School Achievcmcnt Questionnaira item (hrl ~skd terchen if cho paicipwî hrd hacn idcntiflad u having laarning prd,tem9 d w lKdd of spccirl &cation d m ; Smiccs refm Io w h c k dudenia who h d bccn idenlilial UI having leuning problcm or naod of apcirl ducdion smiacs, if lhcy wcm miv ing Lha r&alo aervicca; Haiing mfaa to tmâur'r ntin~ of r c h i c v w , Canpuim n f m to compuircm of pulicipuit's cumt ovmll school achicvemcnt Io hi* ovciall whool ichievcmad at iha beginning of thm rchool ycrr, JK TSRl dm Io JK TSRl clrriüi4orrr (no rirk, low odds ri&, ad high odds ri&) uid SK TSRl ~ f c n Io SK TSRl cluiificirtiom (no risk, low odda ri&, and hi& odda ri*); JK Behrviour refera to JK Behiviour Appndiw c l d i d m (no ri&, low oddc ri&, uid hi& oddr ri&) ud SK Dchrviour rcfm to SK Bchaviow /\ppcndin claisificatioiu (no ri&, low odds ri&, rnd hi& oddi ri&); Ovcrrll rcfcrr to Ovaill Acuîanio SWlb m; lvylurgs r$m to hwga ad R d i n g Skilli sana; Math mfm to Maîh and Numency Skills irora; Pmcqml-Moia refm to Perccpurl-Moîa Skillii icora; Omg Moior refera to Oror Mdœ SUL rosa; N/Ag indicah îhnt Iha item wu noi wwmd fa ihit puticipml.

59

school achievement and as having improved slightly in comparison to the beginning of the school

year. Most of hifier school achievernent scores were average with one score b e h g above

average, he/she received extra help in class, was being promoted to the next grade, was not at-risk

for school fdure or behaviour problems, and the item regarding anticipation that he/she would

have problems in school in the friture was not answered.

Child 2 was also included in the test-retest sample. Helshe also obtained a Walden DPS

score close to the cut-off (5) and as would be expected obtaiued a higher score on the in-school

DPS (8). Helshe was rated as having average school achievement and as hzvbg slightly improved

in comparison to the beginning of the school year. AU of h i d e r school achievement scores were

average, he/she was being promoted to the next grade, was not anticipated to expenence

problems in school in fûtwe years, and was not at-risk for school fdure or behaviour problems.

Kidher teacher did not a m e r items regardhg receipt of extra help in class or identification of

~~~g problems andlor need of special education services.

The DPS masures Language, Attention and Memory, and Motor Skills, to iden-

children who may be developmentdy delayed. However, it is aiso designeci to identifL children

who have ditncuities or developmental delay(s) in other areas not directly measured by the test,

for example hearing impairment. Thus, hearing impaired children whose foilow-up

recomrnendations are rnainly due to their hearing impairment are not incorredy identified (Kevin

Parker, personal communication, n-d.).

Child 5, who was not included in the test-retest sample, received extra help in class f?om

hidher teacher. Hdshe was rated as having average school achievement and as having slightly

improved in cornparison to the beginning of the school year. AU of hidher school achievement

60

scores were average, hdshe was beiig promoted to the next grade. was not anticipated to have

problems in school in the fiiture, was not identifid as having learning problerns andlor need of

special education services, and was not at-risk for school failure or behaviour problems. The two

hearing impaireci children who received extra help in class (children 3 and 4) were dso doing weii

in school. It can be asnimeci that these children required the extra help given to do weU in school.

If this is the case, these chiidren can also be coasidered to be comectly identified by the DPS

(Kevin Parker, pwsonal communication, n. d.).

There were four children (children 1,2, 6, and 7) who were identified as at-risk on the

Walden DPS who were not seen by their teachen as havhg academic problems. they were rated

as average academicaiiy, and three children were not receiving extra help fiom their teachers (the

item was not answered for child 2).

AU four children included in the test-retest sample were 53 months or older at the time of

the in-school testing. Some children were above the age Limit of the test, one JK participant was

76 months old (child 2). This couid partiy explain they obtained higher in-school DPS scores.

There were five children who received foliow-up recommendations on the in-school DPS

(see Table 10). Al1 children were 53 months or older, two children were above the age k t for

the test (children 1 and 4). None of the chiidren were identified as havhg leaming problems

andlor need of specid education seMces. The in-school DPS appean to have correctly identified

two children as at-risk for school problems (children 2 and 3). In addition one chiid in the foliow-

up sample was found to be at-risk for behaviour problem (child 1). Child 2 obtained a low DPS

score (3) whereas chiid 3 obtained a 7. Children 2 and 3 were rated as having below average

school achievement and as having siightly improved in cornparison to the begioning of the school

Table 9 . . ve for Follow--Samole F-01 Te*

1 67 7 Yes Yes No No NIA Avg NIA* NIA NIA Hi& No 2.00 2.00 2,00 2.00 2 . 0 Odds Ri&

2 57 3 Ycs Ycs Yes No NIA Below Slight Low No NIA NIA 1.40 1.38 1.33 1.44 1.50 Avg Odds Risk

3 58 7 Yts Ycs Yes No NIA Below Sliat No Low NIA N/A 2.07 2.60 2.00 156 2.00 Av8 Risk Odds

4 63 7 NIAe NIA* No NIAe NIA* Avg Slight No NO NIA NIA 2.15 2,W 2.00 2.44 2.00 Risk Hisk

59 5 Yes Yes No No NIA Avg Signifiant No No NIA NIA 2.10 2.30 2,17 2.1 1 2.00 Risk Risk

Note: DPS rcfers to in-school DPS total scores, Age refers to sgc in months at the timc of the in-schwl (esting; Extra Help refers to thc item asking tcachas if lhey providcd the pariicipant with extra help with school ttisks; Promotion rcfcrs to whchcr îhc pimicipunt wa.9 bcing promotcd to the next grade., Problcms rcfcrs to the School Achievcrnçnt Qucstionneite item that asked teachers their opinion rcgarding whcthcr the participant will have problems in school during current or futwe school ycars; Idcntiiid rcfets to the School Achievernent Questionnaire item b t asked tcachers if the participant had been identifiai as having l m i n g pblems and/oc need of s p i a l education services; Smices refcrs to whcther students who had been identifiai as having I m i n g problcms or nccd of special education services, if they w m receiving the appmpristc services; R8ting refen to tcacha's rating of achievement; Comparison refm to cornparison of participant's c ~ ~ ~ c n t ovaall school achicvcment to hisher overall school achievement at the bqinning of the school year, JK 'TSTSRI refers to JK TSRI clessifications (no risic, low odds risic, and high odds ri&) and SK l S R I refers to SK TSRi classifications (no ri&, low O&& ri&, and high ad& ri&); JK khaviour nfers to JK khnviour Appcndix classifications (no risic, iow d s risk, and high odds ri*) and SK Dehaviour refers to SK Bcheviour Appcndix classifications (no ri&, low d i s risk, and high odds risk); Ovmll refcrs to Overall Academic Skills score; Languagc refera to Languagc and Rceding Skills xmq Maîh rcfen to Math and Numeracy Skills scores; Pemptual-Motor refers to Percqtual-Motor Sltills swres; Gross Motor refers to Gross Motor Skills s m q NIA* indimtes that the item was not answ~ed for that participant.

62

year. AU of the school achievement scores for child 2 were below average and most of the school

achievement scores for child 3 were average with one score being below average. Both children

received extra help in class f?om their teachers, both children were being promoted to the next

grade, both children were anticipated to experience fiinire problems in school, one (child 2) was a

low odds risk for school failwe and one (child 3) was a low odds risk for behaviour problems.

Child 1 was a high odds risk for behaviour problems. Hdshe received a score of 7 on the

in-school DPS, was rated as havhg average school achievement and the item regarding how much

hidher school achievement improved in comparison to the beginning of the school year was not

answered. AU of hider school achievement scores were average, hdshe received extra help in

chss fiom hisnier teacher, hdshe was being promoted to the next grade, it was not anticipated

that he/she would experience fùture problems in schooî, he/she was not at-nsk for school failure.

There was one other child who received a score of 7 on the in-school DPS (child 4).

Helshe was rated as having average school achievement and as having slightly improved in

comparison to the beginallig of the school year. AU of hidher school achievement scores were

average, the item regarding receipt of extra help in class was not answered, the item regarding

promotion to the next grade was not answereà, the item regarding whether helshe was anticipated

to have Future school problems was not answered, and hdshe was not at-nsk for school failure or

behaviour problems.

Child 5, received a DPS score of 5. Hdshe was rated as havi~g average school

achievement and as having signüïcantly improved in comparison to the beginning of the school

year. AU of hisher school achievement scores were average, he/she received extra help in class

fiom hisiher teacher, he/she was bemg promoted to the next grade, Wshe was not anticipated to

63

experience friture problems in school and Wshe was not at-risk for school failure or behaviour

problems.

Children 2 and 3 were correctly identifid by the DPS as being at-risk for school d i f f i d t ~

as both children were experiencing academic problems. Chiid 1 may also be considerd to have

been co~ectiy identified as at-risk for school difEculties as hdshe was at-risk for behaviour

problems. The Behaviour Appendix is a screen usexi to identiîj childrm who may bave problems

with aggression and/or oppositional-defient behaviour towards classrnates a d o r teachers. This

type of inappropriate behaviour may interfére with a child's performance in school. For exemple,

a chiid who does not comply with classroom instruction wiil not perform required school tasks

weil, which wdi be reflected in hi&- grades. Also, child 1 received extra help in class fiom

hidher teacher. Child 5 also received extra help in class fiom hisnier teacher, it is not known if

child 4 did as the item was not answered. Children who receive foliow-up recommendations on

the DPS who require extra help to perform school tasks weU, can be considered to be wrredy

identified (Kevin Parker, personai communication, n-d.).

. . va& Speannan Rank Order correlations beh~een age and DPS total scores

were examined to investigate construct validity. Age at tirne of Walden Fair Staxt testing was not

correlated with DPS total scores from Walden Fair Start ( r b -.24, pz -05, n= 43). In addition,

age at time of the in-schwl testing was not comlated with DPS total scores 6om the in-sch00l

testing @ho= -06, p> -05, n= 47).

64

Factor anaiyses of items fiom the DPS were pdormed as an exploratory evaluation of the

factor structure of the DPS. The factor analysis with the items fiom the Waiden DPS could not be

computed due to a number of items with no variability ( m e r e d w ~ e c t l y by all participants).

The factor analysis with the items fkom the in-schwl DPS was wmputed excluding one

item that was answered cox~ectiy by all. The factor analysis was performed with the item

responses of 47 participants. Principal components was used to extract the -ors and a v&ax

rotation was used to rotate the resultant factor structure. However, the factor structure obtained

was uninterpretable. The DPS is a Guttman d e , with items ranging in difnculty level. As a

result, factor analysis is not an appropriate statidc for the DPS.

. .. Test-retest reliability of the DPS was examineci by computing

Spearman Rank Order correlations between Walden Fair Start DPS total scores and the in-school

DPS total scores. The DPS was found to have moderate test-retest reliability (rho= .S i , p < -05,

n= 16).

The crosstabulation cornparing Waiden Fair Start DPS classifications to the in-school DPS

classifications could not be computed because no participants in the test-retest sarnple received

recommendation for foliow-up on the in-school DPS administration. The test-retest simple

included four chiidren who obtained follow-up recommendations at Walden Fair Start. Two

children who had obtained follow-up recommendations at Walden Fair Start were not re-tested

because they did not e d in schoof as was expected (Margaret Ignacy, personal communication,

n-d.). There were also two foilow-up children who were not re-tested because it was not marked

on their parent feedback forms that they did receive foliow-up recammendations.

65

. .. Solit-HalfReliabilitv. Split-half reliabiiity analyses were performed with items from the

DPS. This couid not be done for the Walden Fair Start DPS due to a number of items with no

variability. The in-school DPS analysis was done with an odd-even split of the items. Split-half

reliability is the appropriate index of reiiability for a Guttman d e . The in-school DPS was found

to have a Guttman split-halfreiiability coefficient of -41 indicating moderate intemal consistency

reliability.

. S .

CO- Intenial consistency reliabiiity analyses were also

performed with items fiom the DPS. I n t d wnsistency is not appropriate for a Guttman scale,

however it was computed to supplement the split-haif reüability analyses. The interna1 consistency

reliability analysis for the Walden Fair Start DPS items couid not be performed due to a number

of items with no variability. The in-school DPS was found to have an alpha of -57 indicating

moderate intemal consistency reliabiiity.

In order to examine possible sample seleetion bias, Mann-Whitney tests were computed to

compare Walden Fair Start attendees and non-Waiden Fair Start attendees on the in-school DPS

total scores and the school achievement measwes (see Table 11). No siuficant differences were

found. Also, crosstabulations were p e r f o d to compare the participants on the in-school DPS

classincations, school acbievemmt questionnaire items, TSRI and Behaviour Appmdà

classifications, gender, grade, language of instruction, and school were aU non-significant (set

Table 12).

Table 11 Co- W w Non-W-

Mean Rank Z

WFS NWFS

In-School DPS 26.67 (n= 18) 22.34 (n= 29) -1.10

Language 34.60 (n= 44) 40.64 (n=29) -1.23

Math 36.86 (n= 44) 37.21 (n= 29) -.O7

Perceptuai-Motor 3 5 -27 (n= 44) 39.62 (n= 29) -.89

Behaviours 34.74 (n= 44) 40.43 (n=29) -1.13

BTBC-PV Raw Scores 39.21 (n= 43) 3 1 .O7 (n= 28) -1.65

JK Behaviour 32.58 (n= 36) 28.72 (n= 25) -1.21

SK TSRI 12.29 (n= 14) 11.56 (n= 9) -.26

SK Behaviour 12.43 (n= 14) 11.33 (n= 9) -.42 Note: WFS refers to Walden Fair Start attendees and NWïS refers to non-Walden Fair Start attendces. Note: JK TSRI refas to JK TSRI total scons and SK TSRI refas to SK TSRI total saxes. Note: JK Behaviour refers to JK Behaviour Appendix total scores and SK Behaviour refers to SK Behaviour Appeadix total scores.

Table 12

Qn the No

In-School DPS -27 p> -057

JK TSRI -16 p> -05-

JK Behaviour .O3 p> -057

SK TSRI .O7 p >.O57

SK Behaviour -17 p >.O57

Identified Learuing Problems -20 p> .O57

Probiems in School .12 p> -057

Gender .O05 p> .OS*

Grade -19 p> . O S *

Language of Instruction .O5 p> .OSL

School -1 1 p> . O P * Note: Ofor two by two tables which included l e s than two ceiis with expccted Iiequcncies less than five, the sipifiamce level for Cramer's V was reported Note: ** for tables that were larger than two by two, the sigainance level for Cramer's V was reported Note: for two by two tables which iacluded two or more ceils with expected h q m c i e s less than five, the significance level for Fisher's exact test was reported Note: JK TSRI refers to JK TSRI classifications (no risk, low odds risic, and high odds risic) and SK TSRi refers to SK TSRI classifications (no risk, Iow odds risk, and hi& odds risk). Note: JK Behaviour refers to JK Behaviour Appendix classifications (no risk, low odds nsk, and hi& odds risk) and SK Behaviour refers to SK Behaviour Appendix classincations (no n5, low ocids risk, and high odds risk). Note: Identifiecl Learning Problems rcfers to the Schwl Achicvanmt Questionnaire item that asked teachers if the participant had been identifieci as having learning proôlems andlm need of spesial education savices. Note: Problems in School rcfers to the School Achievanent Questionnaire item that asked tcachas th& opinion rcgarding whether the participant will have problaas in schwl during current or fiaure school years.

68

Mann Whitney tests showed that parents of Waiden Fair Start attendees had a significantly

higher median number of memben in the household than did parents of nonWalden Fair Start

attendees (mean r e - 40.82 vs. 3 1.2 1, r- - 2.3 1, p < -05). There were no signifiant ciifferences

between the parents who participated in Walden Fair Start and parents who did not on Home

Learning Environment scores (mean ranks= 3 5.39 vs. 39.45, r= -.81, p> .OS) and ratings of

interest in information on child developmeut (mean tanks= 34.82 vs. 39.14, F 0.94, p> -05).

Sigruficant crosstabuiations were found for the foilowing variables: whether the chiid was

babysat by a fiiend, relative, or paid sitter during the previous year; end whether the chüd had

previously attended the Walden Play and nd Cooperative (see Table 13). Ofthe 43 participants

who had attended Walden Fair Start, 10 (23.3%) were babysat by a fnend, relative or paid sitter

the previous year v m s 33 (76.7%) who were not; of the 25 participants who had not attended

Walden Fair Start, 12 (48.0%) had been babysat by a fiiend, relative, or paid sitter versus 13

(52.0%) who were not (f= 4-42}. Of the Walden Fair Start chüdren, 32 (74.4%) had previously

attended the Walden Play and Leam Cooperative versus 1 1 (25.6%) who had not; of those who

had not attended Walden Fair Start 9 (36.û%) had previously attended the Wdden Play and Leam

Cooperative versus 16 (64.00/0) who had not (f= 9.75). No other crosstabulations were

signifiant.

Education Level (other parent/griardïan) -12 p> .OS8*

Employment Strtns (respondent) .O6 p> .05*

Employment Status (otber parent/g~udian) .O6 p> -os*

Babysitting -26 p< . O S

Fiequency of Babysitting -32 p> .05**

Frequency of Daycuc/Pr#chool -14 p> .05**

Child Cam Arrangements -22 p> .OS**

Scbool Problcms -19 p> .OS* Note: for two by two tables which included less than two CC& with acpactbd tkquencies less than five, the signifïcance level for Cramer's V was reported Note: ** for tables larga than two by two, the signiticatlce level for Cnmia's V was nported Note: f for two by two tabla which included at leest two ceils with expccted frequencies l e s than five, the sipiûcance levcl for Cramer's V was reported Note: Education Level ftfers to highest levcl of abcation a!Zaîned; Employment Status refas to whcther the pcrson was currently anployed; Age Catcgory rcfas to the foliowing age categories, 20129.30-39, and 4049; Home ïanguge/s) refers to the language(s) spokai in the home; First Language refers to the participant's first language; Babysitting rcfas to whcther the participant was babysat by a fiaid, dative, or paid sittcr during the prcvious y-, F q t m c y of Babysitting =fers to how o h the participant was babysat by a fiai4 relative, or paid si- cluring the pmvious y-, D a ~ h o o l nfers to whether the participant attcadsd daycare or prcschool during Iht prcvious y-, Fre~uaicy of Daycare/Reschool nefas to how o h the participant attendecl daycarc or prcschool &ring the previous y-, CChild Carc Ammgcmcnts mfas to the ~ c i p a n î s child care amnguncnts the previous year, Play and Ltarn refas to wacther the participant had ever ancnded the Waldai Play and Leam Cwpemîve; Schoal Problems refas to the prirait's(tcsporidait's) opinion rcgarding the passiiiiity that the participant will have problans in sfhool dilring c\rrrent or future school years.

Discussion

The implementation of mass screening clinics to provide eariy identification of

developmental delay has become widespread (Cadman, et al., 1987; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991).

There is a great deal of controversy sur~ounding the use ofscreens in such prognuns because

many screens have inadequate psychometric properties to jus@ their use in such programs

(Schweinhart & Weikart, 1986; Thurlow, O' Sullivan, & Ysseldyke, 1986). 1 is important that

mass screening clulics, and other early identification programs, evaluate how well the screens used

meet their intended purposes. Decisions made based on screens that have inadequate

psychometnc properties for their intended purposes may be invalid and must be questïoned

(Thurlow, O' Sullivan, & Ysseldyke, 1986).

Fair Start is a mass developmental screening clinic targeted at preschoolers entering a

kindergarten prograrn (Essa & Stresman, 1997). The cornmunity of Walden ran a Fair Start

prograrn to provide early identification of preschoolers with possible delay(s) in vision, hearing,

speech-language, or general development. The objective was to identify these preschoolers early

so that intervention could be provided prior to academic problems ocairring. if the purpose of the

program is to be met the screens used must be appropriate. The DPS was used to provide a

measure of preschoolers' developmental status that can predict school achievement. Parker,

Mainland, and Amdur (1997) provided evidence that the DPS is a valid and reliable

developmental screen. However, there is no evidence regarding the criterion-related validity of the

DPS in predicting school achievement. To avoid the misuse of psychological tests it is irnperative

that test users know ifthe test is valid for its intended purpose (CPq 1996). When a test has

71

lirnited validity evidence for a particular purpose the onus is on the test user to provide the

necessary evidence (CPA, 1996). "ilus, evaluation of the general developmental component of

Walden Fair Start needs to include evaiuation of the psychometrk properties of the DPS for its

intended purpose. The purpose of this study was to provide such an evaiuation with an emphasis

on examining the criterion-related validity of the DPS in predicting school achievement.

The results of this shidy are preliminary and additional research is remrnmended to

determine if the DPS is an appropriate developmental screen for use in Walden Fair Start . The

DPS was found to have low to moderate criterion-related validity (validity coefficients ranged

Corn -26 to .56 and low to moderate classification accuracy) and moderate reliability (test-retest,

split-ha, and interna1 consistency). However, because the sample size was small and there were

few foilow-up chiiciren the statistical analyses provide a rough estimation of the DPS' validity and

reiiability. There are dso other factors regarding this study's participants, measures, and testhg

environments that need to be taken înto consideration when evaluating the DPS' validity and

reiiability. To supplement the statistical analyses, pertinent descriptive statistics for the foUow-up

samples were ewmined. It was found that the DPS did correctly identfi some participants as at-

risk for academic diflicuities. Some of the children had average school achievement and were not

experiencing academic problerns however, they were receiving extra help in class fkom their

teachers. These children who requue extra help 6rom their teachers to perfonn school tasks weU

can be considered corrdy identifid by the DPS (Kevin Parker, personal communication, n-d.).

72

Summap of of the V- ofae DPS . . . ..

The Walden DPS was found to have low to moderate predictive validity for some of the

school achievement measures. The validity coefficients for Overail Academic Skiils scores,

teachery s rating of achievement, JK TSRI total scores, and SK TSRI totd scores ranged fiom -26

to .S6. The in-school DPS was found to have moderate concurrent validity for teacher's rating of

achievement, Gross Motor Skills scores, and BTBC-PV raw scores with validity coefficients

ranging from -3 1 to -34.

The TSRI and the questionnaire items included in the Overail Academic Skills score are

fairly global measures of school achievement. The TSRI consists of items measuring attention,

interest, p ~ t i n g abilities, and verbal fluency that have been found to have fairly high correlations

with school achievement @oh 1995; Simner, 1986). Overali Academic Skills items, uicluding

those from the Language and Reading Skills domain, measured readiness skiils abilities and

knowledge expected fiom kindergarten students, as weU as developmental milestones pertinent to

school achievement. Thus, the DPS was found to meanire developmental milestones that are

related to general school achievement, albeit its predictive power was f&ly Iow. The DPS'

correlation with teacher's rating of achievement provides fùrther evidence for its moderate

criterion-related validity for general school achievement.

The BTBC-PV is not a global measure of school achievement. However, knowledge of

basic concepts has b e n found to be related to ail facets of school achievement and school

readiness (Boehm, 1986; Oehler-Stinnett, 1992; Stein, 1992) in addition to performance on

psychoeducational tests (Boehm, 1986; Oehler-Stinnett, 1992). Therefore, the in-school DPS'

moderate concurrent vaiidity with the BTBC-PV raw scores can be considered further evidence

73

that the DPS can predict general school achievement. However, the fact that the in-school DPS

did not have concurrent validity for Overail Academic Skiils scores or any of the school

achievement domains, with the exception of Gross Motor Skiils scores, can be considered a

weakness.

In regards to the DPS' classification accuracy, sensitivity was higher than specificity and

fdse negatives were lower than false positives. In other words with this sample, the DPS was

better at identifjing participants without academic problems than it was at identifying participants

with academic problems. In some cases, sensitivity was zero whereas s p d c i t y was 79% or

greater. The exception to this was the in-school DPS' concurrent validity for JK Behwiour

Appendix classifications and SK TSRI classXcations.

The school achievement questionnaire items, the TSRI and Behaviour Appendix

classifications are categorical variables that group participants either as haviag a particular

academic problem or not. The DPS' classScation accuracy for these categorical variables gives an

indication of how weU the DPS can identw children with academic problems. With this sample,

the DPS was better at identifjing participants without academic problems than it was at

ident iSmg participants with academic problems.

The DPS' classifkation accuracy was opposite to what would be ideal for a est-stage

screen. Ideaily, £kt-stage screens should have high sensitivity in order to identiQ as many

children who reqwe further assessment as possible. This is especiaiiy important if M e r

screening will not be done, which would likely be the case for chiidren who attend mas screening

clinics. In a situation in which developmental surveillance can be done, for example a pediatrician

who regulariy administers developmental screens, not identifyug children who require M e r

74

developmental assessment with any one partiailar test administration is less of a concem. A child

who is not identified as requiring M e r developmental assessment with one test administration

may be identified with another test administration and receïve the appropnate seNices. Lower

specificity, with its corresponding high rate of fdse positives, is considered acceptable for first-

stage screens because second-stage screening should be done to identa those children incorrectly

identified as requiring h h e r assessment.

According to the DPS' classification accuracy found with this sample, the DPS may not be

appropnate for use in identi@hg children who are at nsk for academic problems due to

developmental delay(s). However, the high proportions of false positives found with this sample is

acceptable because ideally the DPS should be foUowed by second-stage screening.

The sensitivity values of the DPS, with the exception of the sensitivity values for JK

Behaviour Appendix classifications and SK TSRI classScations, do not meet the minimum

criteria for developmental screens which specifj. that sensitivity values rangkg fiom .70 to -80 are

adequate (Aylward, 1997; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991; Meisels, 1989). The sensitivity for the

item asking teachers whether they anticipated the participant would expenence problems in school

was close to the minimum criterion of -70. The specificity values, on the other hand, exceed the

minimum critena for developmental screens which specify that specificity values ranging fiom .70

to -80 are adequate (Aylward, 1997; Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1 ; Meisels, 1989).

The DP S ' low t O moderat e critenon-relat ed validity can be considered acceptable because

screens require lower levels of criterion-related validity as they are only used to make preLiminary

decisions (Wilson Hills, 1987). Also, the limited criterion-related validity of the DPS is typical of

developmental screens. Lichtenstein and Ireton (1991) pointed out that developmental screens

75

tend to have limited predictive power in predicting school achievement; predictive power for

resuIts of secondary developmental screening and diagnostic assessrnent tends to be higher.

The DPS did correctly identifjr some children as at-nsk. T h e were eight children who

received foiiow-up recommendations on the Walden DPS. The Waiden DPS identified three

hearing impaired children. The DPS is designed to iden ta children with atypical development in

the areas meawed by the test in addition to areas not directiy measured, such as hearing. Thus,

these children can be wnsidered correctly identified (Kevin Parker, personal communication,

n-d.). Also, these children can be wnsidered wrrectiy identified as being at-risk for school

difEculties. Had they not received seMces for their hearing impairment they iikely would have

experienced difiiculties in school. Two of the hearing impaired chiidren received extra help in

class fiom their teachers.

The Walden DPS a is0 incorrectly identified some participants as at-risk for school

problems. There were four children who were identified as at-risk on the Walden DPS who were

not seen by their teachers as having academic problems, they were rated as average acadernically,

and three chiidren were not receiivhg extra help from their teachers (the item was not answered

for one child).

There were five children who received foilow-up recornmendations on the in-school DPS.

The in-school DPS correctly identsed two participants who did have academic problems and

whose school achievement was below average. These chiidren were anticipated to have fiiture

problems in school, they received extra help fkom their teachers, one child was a low odds nsk for

school failure and one child was a low odds nsk for behaviour problems. In addition, it can be

considered that the in-school DPS correctly identified aaother participant who was also identified

76

as a hi& odds risk for behaviour problems. This child dso received extra help in class. Hdshe

was rated as having average school achievement, was not anticipated to have problems in school

in future years, was being promoted to the next grade, and was not at-risk for school failure. This

child can be considered correctiy identifid by the DPS because hdshe was at-risk for behaviour

problems. Inap propriat e behaviour, such as aggression or O ppositional-defient be haviour t owards

classrnates andior teachers, in particular non-compliance with classroom instruction, may interfére

with school performance.

There were children who were identified by the Walden DPS and the in-school DPS who

received extra help in class to perform school tasks wel. Some of the children discussed above

who were correctly identified, also received extra help in class fiom their teachers. There were

also other children who were rated as having average academic achievement and were not seen by

their teachers as having academic problems who received extra help in class £iom thei teachers.

Children who receive foilow-up recornrnendations on the DPS who require extra help to be able

to perform school tasks weU can be considered to have been correctly identified (Kevin Parker,

persona1 communication, n-d.).

The referral rates were 18.18% for the Wdden Fair Start DPS and 10.68% for the in-

school DPS. The Walden Fair Start referral rate is similar to the DPS' 17.02% refend rate when

a score of 7 is used as the cut-off for classifications however, the in-school DPS referral rate is

somewhat lower. Aylward (1997) has stated that it has been estimated that 25% of children will

receive results on a developmeatal screen indicating recummendation for follow-up screening.

Thus, the referral rates for the DPS were congruent with what would be expected with a mass

screening and do not appear to be problematic.

77

Results of the evaluation of the DPS' criterion-related validity for predicting school

achievement provide some support for the relationship between developrnental status and school

achievement in the prllnary grades (Anderson, 1985; Glascoe, 1997). The results of the evaluation

of the DPS' criterion-related validity for predicting school achievement also provide support for

the use of developmental screens to predict school achievement (Cadrnan, et al., 1988; McKee

Agostin & Bain, 1997; Meisels, 1986). There is evidence that developmental delay is a substantial

problem, with an estimateci 1û% of preschoolers having some degree of developmental delay

(First & P W , 1997). There is also evidence that school problems during the primary y-s have

become prevalent (Cadrnan, et al., 1988; Parker, Maidand, & Arndur, 1997; Mantzicopolous &

Neuharth-Pritchett, 1988; McKee Agostin & Bain, 1997). Thus, the DPS kl6iis a need and its

use to aid in early identification of preschoolers with possible developmental delay(s) that may

negatively impact their school achievement can be beneficial.

The in-school DPS was found to have moderate test-retest reliability, split-haifreliabiiity,

and intemal consistency reliabiiity. Split-half reliability is an appropriate m u e of reliability for a

Guttman sale such as the DPS. I n t e d consitency reliability is not an appropriate masure of

reliability for a Gutunan scale, because the items Vary in difficulty level. However it was

computed to supplement the split-half reliability analyses. Both the in-school DPS' spüt-half

reliability and intemal consistency reliability were lower than the split-haifreliability of .77 cited

by Parker, Mainland & Amdur (1997). The DPS' moderate test-retest reliab'ity indicates that

recommendations for fbrther developmental assessments wouId be fairly consistent across

multiple test sessions. Furthemore, the consistency is quite high conside~g there was a 9 to 10

month interval between Walden Fair Start and the in-school DPS administration. However, none

78

of the four participants who obtained follow-up recornmendations at Walden Fair Start who were

included in the test-retest sample obtained foilow-up recornmendations on the in-school DPS. One

possible reason for this may be that the four children obtained Walden Fair Start DPS scores that

were close to the cut-off score (range of 5 to 7). Thus, it would be reasonable to expect that if

any improvement occurred during the months pnor to the in-school testing that they would obtain

in-school DPS scores higher than 7. Another possible reason is that three out of the four foliow-

up chiidren included in the test-retest sample had severe hearing irnpairments. These children most

iikely did not have developmental delay(s), their hearing irnpairment most Iikely being the main

contnbutor to their failed DPS screening. The children's parents did not have concerns regarding

their development nor did their parents seek fùrther assessrnent or intervention for their

development which provides furiher support that heariag impairment was their only problerr..

They had received services for their hearing impairment, which Wtely helped them to pefiom

better on the in-school DPS. Aiso, two of the children received a score of 7 on the Walden DPS

and one received a score of 6. Children who receive scores of 7 are expected to score higher

when retested. It is also reasonabfe to expect that children who obtains a swre close to the cut-off

would obtain a higher score when retested ifthey irnproved at ail prior to the second test. Another

possible reason may be that three out of the four children were over the age iimit of the DPS at

the time of the in-school testing. One JK participant was 76 months old. This could at least partly

account for the higher in-school DPS scores.

The DPS' moderate reliability can be considered adequate because moderate levels of

reliability are acceptable for screening masures used to make preiiminary decisions and to

categorize individuals in a s d number of groups based on gross distinctions (Murphy &

79

Davidshofer, 1994). However, the in-school DPS ' intemal consistency reîiability and the DPS '

test-retest reliability are lower than the -70 to -80 range considered acceptable for screens (Cohen

& Spenciner, 1994; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994).

Factors A n e t h e P S C w o n - R e m V- 9 ' . . . . ..

The DPS is a multidirnensional developmental screen that measures the developmental

domains of Language, Attention and Memory, and Motor Skills. The DPS, like other

developmental screens, can only provide a limited nwnber of items measuring each developmental

domain included. This is likely one of the main reasons for the classification errors that occur with

developmental screens.

The DPS measures Expressive and Receptive language. In addition, some Attention and

Memory items, for example reconstructing cube designs, can be considered measures of

cognition. Some Fine Motor items, for example drawing a person, may be considered better

measures of perceptual motor skills rather than fine motor skills per se. During the preschool

years, cognition and language (Aylward, 1997) and fine motor/perceptual motor skills

(Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1991) are the most preâictive of later school achievement. The DPS also

includes items measuring Gross Motor skiils which are less predictive of later school achievement

in the absence of severe developmental difficulties (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 199 1). Although the

DPS measures developmental domains related to later school achievement because it does not

provide a comprehensive masure of any of those developmental domains it would be expected to

have some degree of classification error in identifjing children who are possibly at risk for school

probfems.

80

Most participants were not at risk of developmental delay(s) and their academic abilities

ranged fiom average to above average. They had high scores on the DPS, BTBC-PV, TSRI,

Behaviour Appendix, and school achievement questionnaire variables. Very few were found to be

at-risk for school diflEicu1ties or behaviour problems, niture problems in school, or were identiî5ed

as havîng learnùig difliiculties and/or need for special education services. If the sample was more

heterogeneous with respect to developmentd status and school achievement it would have been

possible to obtain a more accurate estimate of the DPS' criterion-related validity, in particular if

there were more children who obtained foliow-up recommendations and more chiidren with

academic problems. The DPS is a first-stage screen that is designed to rnake gross distinctions, to

discriminate at-risk children fiom those chiidren who are not at-risk. It is not designed to

discriminate between those children who are not at-risk. The majority of the sample did not

receive follow-up recommendations and were doing weli acadernicaiiy, thus it would be expected

that the DPS would have low cnterion-related validity for these chiidren.

The BTBC-PV and the TSRI are also screening instruments designed to rnake gross

distinctions, to discriminate the at-risk student from the not at-risk student. They are not designed

to differentiate between the students who are not at-risk The BTBC-PV and the TSRI were

chosen because they are valid and reliable measures that are related to school achievement in the

primaq grades. However, because the sample hcluded so few foliow-up chiidren and the majority

of participants were doing weli in school, the DPS' critenon-related validity for these measures

would be expected to be low. Further, with this sample the BTBC-PV would have even less

discriminative power due to its age Limit being too low for the Senior Kindergarten participants

and Grade One participants as well as a few of the older Junior adergar ten participants.

8 I

Another problem due to the homogeneity of the simple with respect to developmental

statu and academic achievement was the DPS and school achievement measures had lirnited

variabiiity and were skewed. Criterion-related validity will be lowered if the criterion measuree(s)

a d o r predictor measure(s) have low variability, thus leading to underestimation of the actual

relationship between the measures (Rudner, 1994).

Homogeneity of test takers can also limit a rneasure's reiiabiiity (Cohen & Spenciner,

1994; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). The homogeneity of the sample also may have been a factor

in the moderate intemal consistency reliabüity of the in-schwl DPS. Intemal consistency

reliability for the Walden Fair Starî DPS could not even be computed because there were a

number of items with no variability. The BTBC-PV aiso had low variabiiity and may have had low

reliabiiity for this sample. Reiiabiiity of the cnterion measure(s) and/or predictor measure(s) places

a limit on the strength of the validity coefficients. In other words, ifa critenon measure(s) or

predictor measure(s) has low reliability the strength of the validity coefficients will be

underestirnated (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1 994). The interna1

consistency reliabiiity coefficients for the school achievement questionnaire scores were very high

and would not place a Limit on the validity coefficients. However, the moderate internai

consistency reliabiiity of the DPS would limit the validity coefficients with the school achievement

questionnaires scores.

In regards to the rather poor classincation accuracy of the Walden Fair Start DPS one

possible factor is that three out of the eight follow-up chiidren had hearing impainnents. These

children received intervention for their hearing impairment and have been able to perfonn

successfùliy in school thus lowering the Walden Fair Start DPS' sensitivity and increasing its false

positive rate.

There were two children who had received referral for developmental assessrnent at

Walden Fair Start who did not enroll in Junior Kindergarten as was expected (Margaret Ignacy,

personal communication, n.d.). The inclusion of the two referred chiidren may have made a

difEerence in the DPS' criterion-related validity, in particular the classification accuracy of the

Walden Fair Start DPS. Unlike the referred chitdren who did enroii in school these chiidren

probably do have developmental delay(s) and would Likely have had diflEidties in school.

Addition*, there were both Waiden Fair Start attendees and nomWalden Fair Start attendees

who did not participate in this study because their parents did not provide consent. It is not

possible to estimate what effect the loss of these participants had on the validity and reiiability

results found.

Results of the sample selection bias analyses indicated that there were no significant

dflerences on any of the school achievement measures between Waiden Fair Start attendees and

non-attendees. Therefore, sample selection bias is not a factor in the DPS' validity or reliability

results found in this study.

There was a lengthy time intend, approximately 9 to 10 months, between Walden Fair

Start and the in-school testing. The long tirne interval needs to be taken into consideration when

evaluating the predictive validity and test-retest reliability of the DPS. The moderate predictive

validity and test-retest reiiability c m be considerd quite high considering that the time interval

was almost a year. Predictive validity and test-retest reliability would likely have b a n higher if the

t h e interval was shorter. The tirne interval was chosen to d o w participants, in particular the

Junior Kindergarten participants, to have beai in school a reasonable amount of tirne because the

83

emphasis was on predicthg a d school achievement. Also, it is important to examine the

predictive validity of developmental screem over fairly long tirne intervais.

Lichtenstein and Ireton (1 99 1) pointed out that screening results depend not only on

children' s abilities but, also on the test environment and the examiner. At Walden Fair Start the

room in which the DPS administrations were done was too noisy and distracting for the children.

Some parents stated in the parent ïnteMew that they thought their cbiid(ren) did not perform as

well as they could have on the DPS because they were too distracted by the noise and by seeing

the other chiidren being tested. Such poor test conditions can lower the reliability and validity of a

test (Cohen & Spenciner, 1994; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994). More than one examiner

administered the DPS at Walden Fair Start. Examuiers may have diered in th& administration

and scoring of the DPS which could have affected its reliabity and validity (Lichtenstein &

Ireton, 1991). These factors can partially explain the Walden DPS' limited predictive validity.

RecommendaIjons for W-r S t a

The results of this study are preliminary. Research with W r e Walden Fair Start

participants should be done foncerning the critenon-related validity of the DPS in predicting

school achievement to detennine whether the DPS should continue to be used in the program.

One suggestion to improve the predictive power of the developmental screening is to

supplement the DPS with a parental report developmental screen that can be quickly scored. The

results of the parent report developmental screen cm be given to the parents dong with the DPS

results. The results of the parent report developmental scran could be partidarly useful to aid in

making referral decisions for children who did not display their typical abilities because of lack of

84

interest in complethg the test, shyness, presence of other irnpairrnents, or other extranemus

circumstances.

Another suggestion to improve the predictive power of the developmental screening is to

enablish local n o m for the DPS. When the target population of a mass screening c h i c difEers

fiom the target population of the screen used it is recommended that local norms be established in

order to irnprove the classification accuracy of the screen (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1 99 1). If the

typical sample of children who are screened et Walden Fair Start are dissimilar to the target

population of the DPS the ait-offs scores estabüshed based on the normative sample for the DPS

are Likely to be inappropriate. If the DPS cut-off scores continue to be used the classification

accuracy of the DPS will likely be inadequate. [fit is found that the fûture samples of children

tested at Walden Fair Start are too dissimilar to the target population of the DPS, reducing the

eEcacy of the DPS' cutsff scores, then establishment of local noms c m be considered. Using

local norms for the DPS may help Walden Fair Start be more efficacious in identifjing at-nsk

children and providing them with the appropriate services to enable them to start school with a

fair start.

The resuits of this study ernphasized the need for second-stage screening. The DPS'

lirnited critenon-related validity for predicting school achievement is typical of developmental

screens. Also many screens have Limited critenon-related validity for predicting developmental

status. According to Aylward (1997) because developmental xreens measure a number of

developmental domains with a small number of items they can not be used to decipher the

cause(s) of a failed developmental screening and oAen they may not provide a representative

evaluation of children's abilities. Walden Fair Start should arrange second-stage screening for

85

chiidren who receive referrals for fiirther developmental assessment. Second-stage screening can

be used to identify those children wiîhout problems who were mis-classüied, in particular children

with other irnpairments. For chiidren with other impaiments the second-stage screening can be

used to determine ifit is only their impainnents that warrant conceni or iftheir developmentd

status warrants concem as well. Vision and hearing tests are provided however, they can not be

used to d e out the possibility of developmental delay(s), further developmentd assessment is

required to make such judgements. Also, if the purpose of Walden Fair Start is to help children

avoid school failure perhaps attempt should be made to monitor the academic achievement of

children who receive referrals.

The DPS consists of items fiom the DISC which best discriminate between refemed versus

non-referred children. However, the last twelve items of the test are the least discriminative. This

weakness needs to be taken into consideration. Many of the children tested at Walden Fair Start

completed some or aii of the last twelve items of the DPS. Perhaps one suggestion would be to

monitor the ages of the children more closely. Maybe oniy children who will be entering Junior

Kindergarten should be screened uniess there is reason to screen older children. If they wish to

screen children older than 53 months and in particular children older than 60 months (the age bit

of the DPS) perhaps they should use a screen with a higher age Limit. At the nnt Walden Fair

Start, held in May of 1998, a number of children who were already enrolled in school participated

dong with their younger sibhgs. However, at the second Walden Fair Start, held in May of 1999,

this was not the case. If the majority of children who participate in Nture Walden Fair Starts are

within the age range appropriete for the DPS it wiU not be necessary to use another

developmental screen with a higher age Limit or to take qecial precautions to monitor the ages of

86

the participants.

Organizers of fùture Walden Fair Starts need to ensure that the DPS be admuiistered in an

appropriate testing environment. At the second Walden Fair Start the testhg environment was

much improved. There were partitions in-between testing stations so the chiidren were not

distracted by watching the other children being tested. Aîso other measures were taken that kept

the noise and distraction in the room down to a minimum,

m s t i o n s for F w e

Parker, Mainland, and Amdur (1997) have provided evidence that the DPS is a valid and

reliable developrnental screen. More research is needed to see if their results are replicable with

other samples of chiidren. Ifthe DPS is used to provide early identification of chiidren at risk for

school problems, studies examking the DPS' critenon-related validity in predicting school

achievement need to be conducted. The studies need to include large samples with an adequate

number of foilow-up children so that an accurate estimate of the DPS' critenon-related validity

can be obtained. The sîudies should be done with selectd samples, such as chiidren who have

received referrals for further developmental assessment, as weU as with random sarnples of

children who are heterogeneous in te- of developmental status and school achievement. The

studies should include indices of actual school achievernent as weU as achievement tests that can

dserentiate between children with average to above average academic abilities. Longitudinal

criterion-related validity studies cm be done to examine how weli the DPS can ident* children

at-risk for school problems during the primary grades.

87

There is a great deal of research on how parent characteristics such as education levei,

socioeconomic status, and home 1ea-g environment, to name a few, are related to children's

cognitive development, school achievement, as weli as the effêctiveness of early identifkation

and/or early intervention programs. However, there is a paucity of research exarnining the parent

characteristics related to participation and compliance in early identification andlor early

intervention programs (Gavidia-Payne & Stoneman, 1997; Reynolds, Miwogenes, Bezrucko, &

Hagemann, 1996; Reynolds & Temple, 1998). This is an important research topic because it can

help program organiters to increase the number of parents who choose to have their children

participate in screening, and if necessary, to obtain niriher services. As a result more children who

require help would receive that help. In this study an attempt was made to examine whether

parent characteristics such as parents' age, employment status, education level, and home learning

environment provided were related to parents' decision to have their children participate in

Walden Fair Start. However, this was done as a secondary research question to provide a check

on whether there was inherent bias in the sample of participants who had attended Walden Fair

Start. More in-depth studies focussing only on parent characteristics need to be conducted,

especially with parents whose children require semices (Lowitzer, 1989). For example, Gavidia-

Payne & Stoneman (1997) found that family firnctioning, marital adjustment, social support,

stress, and copïng were related to parental involvement in an early intervention program for

children with disabilities. More in-depth shidies can also include more cornprehensive

demograp hic variables. Lowitzer (1 989) found that f d y demographics and family functioning

were related to parental compliance with early intervention services made available to their

handicapped children.

88

The gender clifferences found on the TSRI and Behaviour Appmdix are congruent with

previous test scores of students in the Rainbow District School Board. Research can be conducted

to determine if it is necessary to develop separate n o m for males and f d e s (Brian Burtt,

personal communication, June 24&, 1999). Research can also be conduaed to deterrnine the

factors related to the gender differences.

Çonclusion

The results of the DPS' validity and reliability analyses are preliminary. There are factors

regarding this study's participants, measures, and testing environrnents that need to be taken into

consideration when evaluating the DPS' validity and reliability. in particular, due to the srnail

sarnpk and the small number of follow-up children the statistical analyses provide only a rough

estimate of the vdidity and reliability of the DPS. The DPS was found to have low to moderate

cntenon-related vaiidity and moderate reliability. The predictive validity and test-retest reiiability

could be considered high however, due to the long t h e interval between Waiden Fair Start and

the in-school testing.

Examination of pertinent descriptive statistics for the follow-up samples does provide

some evidence that the DPS can identify chiidren at-risk for school diflJcuities. The in-school DPS

correctly identified two children who were experiencing academic problems in Junior

Kindergarten. The in-school DPS also correctly identined one child who was also identified as a

high odds risk for behaviow problems. It can be argued that the heafing impairecl children who

obtained follow-up recomrnendation at Walden Fair Staxt were correctly identified as at-nsk for

school failure. Ifthey did not receive the appropriate seMces for their hearing impairment they

89

most likely would have had academic difncuiîies. However, they were incorrectiy identifid as at-

risk for general developmental delay(s) as their hearing impairment was their only problem. A h ,

it is likely that the children who obtained DPS scores of 7 at Walden Fair Start were corredy

identified at the tirne of testing. Children who obtain a score of 7 are expected to improve when

retested (Parker, Malliland, & Amdur, 1997). At the tirne of testing these children may have been

delayed (developmental delay may be temporary) or were at a borderiine point in their

development, being at-risk for possible later developmental delay.

This study's sample was too homogeneous with respect to developmentai status and

school achievement to d o w an accurate estimate of the DPS' criterion-related validity for school

achievement. Research with fùture Walden Fair Start participants examinhg the DPS' criterion-

related validity for school achievement is recomrnended to determine if the DPS should continue

to be used.

Amencan Academy of Pediatrics (1 994). Screening infants and young children for developmental disabilities (RE94 14), policy statement. Pediatncs, 93, 1-7 (863-865)- (http://www. aap. org/policy/O020/. html).

Anderson, K. C. (1985). Early Prevention of School Faiiure. (ERIC Reproduction Service ED 260 508), 1-6.

Aylward, G.P. (1997). Conceptual issues in developmentai screening and assessment. Developmen rai and Behaviorol Pediahcs, 18, 3 40-3 49.

Boehm, AE. (1986). Boehm Test of Basic Concepts Preschwl Version. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Cadman, D., Chambers, L.W., Walter, S.D., Ferguson, R, Johnson, N., & McNarnee, J. (1987). Evaluation of public hedth preschool child developmental screening: The process and outcomes of a community program. Amer- JoMMI of Public Heaith, 77, 45-5 1.

Cadman, D., Walter, S.D., Chambers, L.W., Ferguson, R, Szatmari, P., Johnson, N., & McNamee, J. (1988). Predicting problems in school performance from preschool health, developmental and behavioural assessment S. GCIAJ. 139, 3 1 -3 6.

Canadian Psychological Association ( 1 9%). Guidelines for educationui midpsychol~~cal tesfing. CPA.

Capute, A. J. & Accardo, P.J. (1997). A neurodevelopmental perspective on the continuum of developmental disabilities. In: Capute, A. J. & Accardo, P.J. (Eds.). Developmental disobilities in infrmcy und chiidhoai, seconà edztion, Volume 1: Neurodewlopmental diaposis and treatment @p. 27 1 -282). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Cohen, L.G. & Spenciner, L.J. (1994). Assesment ofyoung chil'en. New York: Longman.

Coladarci, T. Review of Teacher's School Readiness Inventory. In: Conoley, J-C. & Irnpara, J-C. (Eds.). (1995). B e twelfth mental meanrremenfs yearbuok. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. See test nurnber 387, 1 O3 1 - 1033.

Curtis, W .I. & S i n a N.N. (1997). The psychometric characteristics of the Henderson Environmental Leamhg Process Scaie. Educationai and PsychoIo@caI Meacurement, 57 280-29 1.

DiGirolarno, AM., Geis, H.K., & Walker, C.E. (1998). Developmental issues. In: Ammerman, R.T. & Campo, J.V. H ' m k of pediaîric psychoiogy andpsychatry, w i . 1, psychoIogh~ andpsychiaaic issues in the pediafnc sening @p. 1-22). Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

Doli, B. Review of Teacher's School Readiness Inventory. In: Conoley, J-C. & Impara, J-C. (Eds.). (1995). I;he twelfih menlal measuremenfs yembook. Liiwln, NE: Buros I d t u t e of Mental Measurements. See test number 387, 103 14033.

Dworkh, P.H. (1 989). Developmental screenhg - expecting the impossible? [Commentaries] Pediahics, 83, 6 1 9-622.

Essa, J. & Stresman, E. (1997, SeptemberIOctober). Fair Start: A comrnunity partnership. FWTAOFAEO newsfeffer, 24-26.

Fkst. L.R & Palfsr, J.S. (1 994). The iaôuit or young child with developmemal delay. me New England JoumaI of Medicine, 330, 478-483.

Frankenburg, W.K. (1 985). The concept of screening revisited. In: Frankenburg, W .K., Emde, R.N., & Sullivan, J. W. h î y iakntr~cution of childien at risk: An intemutional perspective @p. 3-17). New York: Plenum Press.

Gavidia-Payne, S. & Stoneman, 2. (1 997). F d y predictors of matemal and patemal involvement in programs for young children with disabilities. Child Development, 68, 701-717.

Gipps, C. & Gross, H. (1 986). Screeniag and identification of children with specid needs in the ordinary school. Eùrly Chi l r thd Development und Cure, 24, 43-62.

Glascoe, F.P., Martin, E.D., & Humphrey, S. (1990). A comparative review of developmental screening tests. Pfidiatrics, 86, 547-554.

Glascoe, F.P., Bynie, K.E., AshfoA, L.G., Johason, K.L., Chang, B., & Strickland, B. (1992). Accuracy of the Denver-II in developmentai screening. Pediahics, 89, 1 22 1 - 1 225.

Glascoe, F.P. (1997). A vaii&tion stu& and ihepsychomenicproperties of the BMGANCE Screens. North Biiierica, MA: Curriculum Associates, Inc.

Hopchin, M. & Erickson, D. (1997). Relationships between the Diagnostic Inventoxy for Screening Children and the Minnesota Child Development Inventory in an early intervention population. C d i m JmmaI of Rehabiiihtion, 10, 1 8 5- 19 1.

IAAP. (1 996, Apü). IAAP NMetteer: Intemationai Associafiafion of Applied PsychoIogy, 8, 1 - 1 3.

Judy, J. (1986). Early screening is essentid for educational accountabüity: A response to Salzer and to Shepard and Smith. Educationai Leadership, 44. 87-88.

Lichtenstein, R (198 1). Comparative validity of two preschool screening tests: Correlational and classification approaches. Journal of Leanting Dis~biliries. 14, 68-72.

Lichtenstein, R & Ireton, H. (1984). Preschool screening: IdentifLing young children with developmentai and educatiorütl problems. Orlando: Grime & Stratton, Inc.

Lichtenstein, R & Ireton, H. (199 1). Preschool screening for developmental and educational probtems. In: Bracken, B. A (Ed.). The psy~hoerfu~omi assesment of preschod chikaen, second edition (pp. 486-5 13). Boston: AUyn and Bacon.

Lowitzer, AC. (1989). Famüy demographics, fsmily fùnctioning, and parent involvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 3 11 Mg), 1-8.

Mantzicopoulous, P.Y. & Neuharth-Pntchett, S. (1988). Transitionai first-grade referrals: An analysis of school-related factors and childrea's charactenstics. J m m i of Educatiomi Psychoiogy, 90, 1 22- 1 3 3.

Matthews, S. (1993). The Diagnostic Inventory for Screenuig Children (DISC): Does preschool administration predict school-age outcorne? Toronto: Graduate Department of Education, University of Toronto (Master's thesis).

McKee Agostin, T. & Bain, S.K. (1997). Predicting early school success with developmental and social skiils screeners. Psychologv in the Schools, 34, 2 19-228.

Meisels, S. J. (1 984). Prediction, prevention, and development al screening in the EPSDT program: In: Stevenson, H. W. & Siegel, AE. (Eds.). Child &veiopment: Resemch and social policy (pp. 267-3 17). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Meisels, S.J. (1986). Testing four- and -five-year-olds: Response to Saher and to Shepard and Srnit h. Educutionai Leadership, 44, 90-92.

Mtnistry of Education and Training. (1998). The ~ ~ r g ~ e n p r o g r m n , 1998. Ontario: Ministry of Education and Training.

Murphy, KR. & Davidshofer, C.O. (1994). Psychoiogicui festing: Principies dt Applications, third edition. Engiewood CWs, New Jersey: Prentice Haii.

National Centre for Learning Disabilities (1 996- 1999). N a d & atypical development . Adapted Eom: Every child is leaming: A training program for parents and teaçhers. New York: National Centre for Leamhg Disabilities.

(http ://ldonline. org/iddindepthlearly~identifkatiodnomal~development. htd) .

Oehler-Stinnett, I. Review of Boehm Test of Basic Concepts - Preschool Version. in: Kramer, J. J. & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.) (1 992). The eleventh mental meanrrements yeurbook Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. See test number 46, 1 12- 1 14.

Oesterreich, L. (1995). Ages & stages - individual differences. In Oesterreich, L., Holt, B., & Karas, S . I m a family child care harsdbook. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension, 191-192. (http ://www. exnet .iastate. edu/Pages/familiedmcC/C hild.Dev/ages. stages.indiv.dX htrnl) .

Palmer, F.B. (1996). The developmental history. In: Capute, AJ. & Accardo, P.J. (Eds.). Developrnenral disabiliries in infmcy and chtl&OOd, second edftion, Volume 1: Neurodevelopmenral diagnosis and treatment (pp. 27 1 -282). Baltimore, Maxyland: Paul H. Brookes Pubtishing Co.

Parker, K.C.H., Mainland, M.K., & Amdur, J.R (1990). The Diagnostic Inventory for Screening C hildren: Psychometric, factor, and validity analyses. CQ114d.m J m m l of Behaviou~aI Science, 22, 3 6 1-3 76.

Parker, K.C.H., Mainland, M.K., & Amdur, J.R (1 997). DPS 3.0: DISC Preschool Screen mamal. St. Clements, Ontario: Maidand Consulting Inc.

Perrone, V. (1 99 1). On standardized testing. ERIC digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED33844), 1-4. (http://ericae.net/db/edoED33 8445. htm).

Reynolds, A J., Mavrogenes, N.A, Bezrucko, N., & Hagemann, M. (1996). Cognitive and family- support mediators of preschool effectiveness: A confirmatory analysis. Child Development, 67, 1 1 1 9- 1 140.

Reynolds, A.J. & Temple, J.A (1998). Extended early childhood intervention and school achievement: Age thirteen îbdings fiom the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 69, 23 1-246,

Rudner, L.M. (1994). Questions to ask when evaluaîing tests. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED385607). 1-5. ~p://ericae.net/db/edo/ED385607.htm).

Shapiro, B.K. (1997). Neurodevelopmental assessrnent of infants and young children. In: Capute, A J. & Accardo, P.J. (Eds. ). Developmental discrblities in infmcy and c h i l d r d second edition, Volume 1: Neuratevelopmental diagnosis ancl îreoinrent @p. 3 1 1-322)- Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Pubishing Co.

Shepard, L.A & Smith, M.L. (1986). Synthesis of research on school readiness and lcindergarten

retention. Educationai Leadership, 44, 78-86.

Simner, M.L. (1986). An evaluation of a new teacher inventory to identify the failure-prone preschool child. ( W C Reproduction Service ED 280 585).

Simner, ML. (1 992). Predictive validity of the Caregiver's School Readiness Inventory. (ERIC Reproduction Service ED 348 144). 1-22.

Squires, J., Nickel, RE., & Eisert, D. (1996). Early detection of developmental problems: Strategies for monitoring young children in the practice sming. Developmental and Behavioral Pediafnfncs, 1 7, 420427.

Stein, S. Review of Boehm Test of Basic Concepts - Preschool Version. In: Kramer, J. J. & Conoley, J-C. (Eds.) (1 992). The eleventh nrentd measwements yembook Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. See test number 46, 1 14-1 16

Stoops, I. Horowitz, S., Kalkowslà, P., Shaughnessy, J., & Hernandez, B. (1991). Developmentally appropriate early childhood education: Handbook on program development and assessment. Washington, D.C. : Department of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 486).

Wison W s, T. (1 987). Screening for school entry. [Clearinghouse on elementary and early childhood education], 1-6. (http://www.kidsource.corn/kidsourcdcontent3/screening.p.2. htd) .

Wilson, R. J. & Rees, R. (1 990). The ecology of assessment: Evaluation in educational settings. Canadian journal of educatlcatlon, 15,215-228

Wilson, R J. & Kirby, J.R (1994). Introduction: Speciai issue on cognition and assessment. n e Alberta JoumuI of Erhrcationai Research, XL, 1 OS- 108.

Ramsey Lake Road Sudbury, Ontario Canada P3 E 2C6

(705) 675-1 1 5 1 FAX (705) 675-4889

universibé T e t m e Chemin du lac Ramsey ~udbury (Ontario) Apptndix A Canada P3E 2C6

Deputment of P q c h o l w DCpartement de psychologie

LETTER TO TEE PARENTS

Dear Parent (s)/Guardian(s) :

f am a Masters student in the Human Dcvelopment Program at Lauretltian University and 1 am to complete a research study. Walden Fair Start, was a developmentat fhir, that tested preschoolers in cliffereut areas of development, for example, vision, hearing, speech-language, and g e d developmenî, to identifi. children who may have difficulties, before they started kindergarten When necessacy, attempts were made to pfoyide parents with information on how to access the appropriate referrals andfor intervention (e-g., getting hearing aids or prescription glasses) for their children. I would Iike to evaiuate how well Walden Fair Start met its purpose to provide developmental screening and information to parents on community agencies. Your child attends a school in the Waiden Fair Start catchment area. You may or may not bave participated in Walden Fair Start. In either case, your cooperation in pennitting your chüd to participate in this research wouid be greatly appreciated.

Each child will be given a p i c m vocabuiary test. A b , some participants will be given a test mes-g general development. Children generally Eind the test materials and tasics interesting. Each test takes about ten minutes and wili be done during reguiar chssroom houn.

Teachers will also be asked to f2.l out questionmires p d d i n g information regardhg the participant's performance in kindergarten. Information, mntained in student records, namely the participant's d t s on a teacher wmpleted questionnilitc (the Tacher's Schml Rea- Inventory) will also be obtained for the study.

You will also be asked to answer a questionnaire during a phone interview. Questions, wiU ask about the participant's attendance at Walden Fair Start, test results Erom Walden Fair Start, and whether any services were given to the child after attendance at Walden Fair Start.

The final decision regarding your chiid's participation must be made by you and your child As well, it is your decision to agree to participate in the Study. You and your child are under no obligation to participate in tbis stuciy and may withdraw at any time without mnsequenœ. The results of this study will not a £ k t your child's grades. Personal information gathered as part of this snrdy will remain private and confïdential. This pmject has been approved by the Rainbow District School Board and the Human Development program a Laurentian University.

Piease complete the enclosed consent form and r e m it to the school AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. We would appreciate receiving an answer cven if you do not want your child to participate. if you bave any questions regarding this research investigaiion, pl- speak to my supervisor, Dr. Elizaùeth Levin, at 675-1 151, extension 4242.

A su- sheet, of the study rcsults, will bc made available to the parents through the school office.

CONSENT FORM

I hereby gant permission for my cbild to participate in the research examin@ the Walden Fair Start program b e i q cunducted by -Patrizia DiMario2 Hunan Development saideut at Laurentian University, supervised by -Dr. Elizabeth Levin2 Human Development professor at Laurentian University.

1 understand that my cbild wiii be given a general developmental test and/or a picture vocabulary test. 1 have been informed that the entire testin8 procedure wili be doue during regular classrmm hours. 1 have also been informed that my child's teacher will cornplete a questionnaire providiag information on my chiid's current performance m Ioodergarten. In addition, my chiid's test results on a questionnaire tbat has been completed by hidher teacher will also be used in this study.

1 understand that my chiid is un& no obiigatim to participate in this study and that hdshe may withdraw at any tirne without consequence. Furthennom, 1 understand that my cMd has the right to refk to answer any question@) and that the results of this mdy will not affect my chiid's grades.

Further, 1, , am interested in participating in this study examhhg the Walden Fair Stan program conducted by DiMario2 Human Development s t u d a supe~sed by Dr. Elizabeth Levin, Proféssor in the Hurnau Oeveloprnent program, at Laurentian University. My participation will consist of complethg a questionnaire via a phone interview.

My participation is strictly voluntary and 1 am free to withdraw from the study at any moment or refuse to participate without penalty. Aithough it wodd be preferable lhat I answer ail of the questions, if 1 am uncornfortable with any particular question, 1 may refûse to answer.

1 understand that ail material coilecteû will be used for research purposes only and that the anonynity of m y child and myseif will be protected. Any personai informaiion gathered as part of this study wili remain private and coniidential.

1 have been infonned that a su- sheet of the study results will be made available through the school office. 1 understaad that the long-tenn goal of this research is, to examine the Walden Fair Start Program-

If 1 have any questions, 1 have been invited to speak to Dr. EIizabeth Levin at 675-1 15 1, extension 4242.

Consent for Cùüd's Participation:

1 give permission for m y child to participate.

I do not give permission for my child to participate.

NAME OF CHILD:

CHILD:

DATE:

Consent for Parent's Pdciprtion:

PARTICIPANT'S SIGNATURE: DATE:

Please p ~ t home phone number:

Please write couvenieni time(s) to cal1 for phone i n t e ~ e w :

PLEASE RETURN THIS CONSENT FORM TG THE SCHOOL BY

THANdr' YOU FOR YOUR P A R ~ ~ A ~ O A T .

Ramsey Lake Road Sudbury, Ontario Canada P3E 2C6

(705) 675-1 151 FAX (705) 675-4889

Qiemin du lac Ramsey Sudbury (Ontario) Canada P3E 2C6

(705) 675-1151 Télécopieur (705) 6 7 4 9

Department of Prychology DCputement de psychologie

LETTER TO THE TEACHERS

Name of researcher Patrizia DiMario Institution: Laurentian University Telephone number (705) 674-4979

Dear Teachers(s):

1 am a Masters student in the Human Development Program at Laurentian University and 1 am required to complete a research study. Waiden Fair Start, was a developmentai fàir, that teste- preschders in different areas of developmentt, for example, vision, hearing, speech-language, a d g m e d development, to idente children who may have developmental delay, before the entered kindergarten. When necessary, at~empts were made to provide parents with idormation on how to access the appropriate referrais andor intervention (e-g., getting hearing ai& or prescription glasses) for their children. 1 wodd like to evaluate how well Walden Fair Start met its purpose to provide developmental screenïng and information to parents on community agencies. Your cooperaîion in pemuaing your students to participate in this research wouhi be greatly appreciated. Your mperation in participatiag in this research would also be greatly appreciated.

Each participant wiii be gïven a picture vocabdary test. Also, same participants will be given a test meamring generai development. The tests are for primary aged chiidren, they are short, the tasks are simple, and children generaily find the test materials and ta& interest@. Each test takes about ten minutes and wiii be done during regular classroom hours.

1 would appreciate, if you couid wmplete a brief questionnaire, for each of the participants enroiled in your class, providing information regardhg the participant's performance in kindeqprkm. The questionnaire, d also ask for inforrnaîion regadhg your howledge of the student's attendance at Walden Fair Start.

You are under no obiigation to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any time without consequeme. The resutts of tbis study wiii not affect your students' grades. Personai information gathered as part of this study wiil remain private and confideatial. This project has been approved by the Rainbow District School Board and the Human Development program at Laurentian University. If you have any questions regarding this research investigation, please contact my supervisor, Dr. Elizabeth Levin, at 675- 1 1 5 1, extension 4242.

A summas. sheet, of the study resuits, wiU be made available through the school office.

Appendu B School Achievement Questionnaire

Studcnt's Name

N.B.: For each of the items, p l cp~e f~c l fke to a d a&iitional cmmtenup ahink am necessmy ta ch>your reJponse.

Knowledge of Smeen Resufts: N.B.: The mponse to the first two guutiom in this section neeâ cm& be mcorried on one questionnuim.

The tenn follaw-up results refirs to the child receiving ncommenààtion/or fo1Iow-up assasment in a p m ~ ~ ~ l a r developmental m. based an hislher s c m m l t s obtm-ned at Walden Fair S~ort for k t developmentol m a .

1) Did you know about Walden Fair Start and the screening tests that were pmvided? Y< No-

2 ) Did you plan on usiag stuâents' developmental test d t s obtaiaed at Walden Fair Start to assist in development of class curriculum a d o r to develop individualized instniction for students? Y- No-

3a) Were you Monneci of whether the student participated in Waldm Fair Start? Y- No- 3b) If yes, were you informed of the student's test d t s ? Y< No- lf you responded Yes to question 36, please m m e r questions 3c md 3d Ifyou responded No to question 36, plerrse skip questions 3c and 3d and go directiy to the Students ' School Achievement section. 3c) if the student &mi foiiawvp resuiîs on the d e w e l o p d testiag at Walden Fair Start, did )-ou provide himher with e.xtra help in class? Yes_ No- 3d) Ifthe stuka received foilow-up results in other areas, e,g., vision, hearing, or speech-language, did you provide him/her nith extra help in class? Y- No-

Students ' Sckool Achievement:

1) 1s the student absent h m school on a fiequent basis? Yes - No -

2) 1s the student late for school on a frequent basis? Yes_ No_

3a) Has the snident k n idenUfled as having learning din[iculties, for example identified as leaming disabled or as needing speciai education services, etc. .? Y- No- 3b) If yes, bas the student been provided the appropriate services? Y- No-

1) Hiwe you prwvided the m x b î with extra help to enable himmer ta ptrform classroom actMties weU? Y< NO-

5) Will the student be promoted to the next grade level? Y- No-

6a) Do you think that the student wiii have any problems in school during this schooI year or in future school years? Yes- No- 6b) If Yes, please offer some comments as to why flou may mark comments on other side of the page).

7) How would you rate the student's current overail school achievement? Below Average- Average- Abovc Average-

8) How would you rate the studcnt's current ovcraii xhool achievement in cornparison to hisher l m 1 of s c h d achievement at the beginnïng of the scbooI year? Has significar.uly declined- Has slightly decliaed- Has remaineci at the same level- Has slightly impraved- Has signincancly imptoved-

For the following items pïease rate the stu&nt 3 m e n t overai2 achievement leveVabiiity:

Rating Scde: Bdow Average= 1 Average= 2 Above A v e r a g ~ 3

2) Knowiedge of letter sounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

3) Recognition of simple words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

4) Breadth and depth of receptive vocabuiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

5) Breadth and depth of expressive vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

6) Understanding and following simple directions and instnxtions presented orally . . 1 2 3

7) Comprehension of orally presented materials (e.g.. stories. poems. and songs) . . . . 1 2 3

8) Communication of wantdneeds to classrnates and teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

9) Consvuas sentences with proper syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

1) Naming and recognition of numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

2) Rote counting to expected levei for grade level . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

3) Understanding of quantity (e.g.. can munt out a specific number of objects) . . . . . 1 2 3

4) Understanding of basic number and measurernent concepts (e-g., compare different sets of numbers such as ident* which set of abjects has fewer or more items than another. use simple meanirement terms such as tall/short, identification of o r d i i positions) . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

5) Sorting and class-g objects according to size and mess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

6) Use of spatial concepts (e.g.. above/below) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

Perce- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1) Na-g and recognition of basic shapes 1 2 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2) Copying of basic shapes 1 2 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3) Copying of basic foms (e.g.. line and cross) 1 2 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4) Namuig and recognition of basic colours 1 2 3

5) Sorting and classifjing objects according to physical attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . such as colour and shape 1 2 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6) Copying of letters and simple words 1 2 3

7)Copyingofnumbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9) Short-terrn visual memory 1 2 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1) Co-ordination and balance 1 2 3

2) Ability to engage in sports activities and games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

For the following items. raie the sfuàèn! 's tpical Ieming behaviours in the clussruom:

Rating Scde: N c v e ~ 1 M y = 2 OccasioniUy= 3 Oftcn= 4 Vc y Oftcn- 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1) Completes work according to instructions 1 2 3 4 5

2) Complies with classrwm d e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

3) Concentrates adequately during lessons, group activities. and when working on actïvities alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4) Displays confidence in approaching leaming tasks 1 2 3 4 5

5) Displays persistence when peflorming tasks. even when they are difficult .... 1 2 3 4 5

6) Asks for assistance from classrnates and tacher when necessq (for academic and non- academictasks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7) Works and plays well with others 1 2 3 4 5

8) Adapts easily to new situations. routines. and people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . presented in the classroorn 1 2 3 4 5

9) Participates in group disnissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

Appendu C

Parent Questionnain:

P m e ~ t S c h d JnvoIvement and Ckild's S c h d AthievemenVAbility For all parents partrk@atr0ng in the stu(3,:

1) About how many children's books do you have in your home? 1 - 5 5 - 1 0 1 1 - 2 0 21-30- more than 30-

2) Can (child's narne) recognize and name some or ail of the letters in the alphabet? Yes- No-

3) Can (child's name) recognize, name, and count numben? Yes- No-

4) How much did you help/ or do help (child's name) to recognk and name letters of the alphabet? Never- Less than monthly- MontMy- Weekly- Daily-

5 ) How much did you help/ or do you help (child's narne) to recognize, narne, and count numbers? Never- Less than monthly- Monthly- Weekly- Daily-

6) How often do you read to (child's narne)? N e v e r Less than monthly- Monthiy- Weekly- Daily-

7) How ofken does (child's name) see you rad? N e v e r Less than monthiy- Monthly- Weekly- Daily-

8) How ofien do you h d out about what (child's name) is learning in school? N e v e r L e s than monthly- Monthly- W e e k Ddy-

9) How often do you talk with (chiid's name) about schooi, what hdshe did that day, what hdshe is learning in class? N e v e r Less than monthly- MonthIy- Weekly- Daily-

10) How oAen do you help (child's name) practice and leam what hdshe is learniag at school? Never- Less than monthiy- Monthly- Weekiy- Daily-

1 1) How often do you tell [child's name] that he or she has done good work at school? * Never- Less than rnonthiy- Monthly- Weekly- Daily-

12) How often do you give [cbild's name] a pat or a hug or something Wre that when you are pleased with the way he or she is leaming? Never- Less than monthly- Mont% Weekiy- Daily-

13) How important is it to you that (chiid's name) do weU in school now and in later years? No importance- Low importance- Medium importance- High importance- Very high importance-

14) How important do you thuik education is for (child's name) to have a good life in hidher fiiture? No importan- Low importan- Medium importance High importance- Very high importance-

15) How important do you think education is for people to have a good Me? No importance- Low importance- Medium importance- High importance- Very hi& importance-

16) Do you think that (chiid's name) will have any problems in school during this school year or in future school years? Yes- No-

fie of Screen Resrrlîs for parents whose chiI&en aended Wdden Fair StM:

la) Do you think that (child's name) did as wel as he/she could have on the developmental test at Walden Fair Start? Yes - No- If No: lb) Do you think that (child's name) didn't do as weU as helshe eould have because hekhe was too shy or uncomfortable with the testing procedures? Yes- No- lc) Do you think that (chüd's name) didn't do as weil as hehhe could have because hehhe wa~ not interesteci in completkg the test? Y e s No-

OptiomZ comments

2a) Did you tell (chiid's narne) school that he/she went to Walden Fair Start? Yes - No - 2b) If Yes: Did you tell (child's name) school how he/she did on the developmental test at Waiden Fair Start? Y e s No-

2c) Did you tell (child's name) school how he/she did on any of the other tests at Walden Fair Start? Yes - No -

4a) How much were you interested in information on child development, e-g., watching t.v. shows or reading books that give parents advice on child development, child-raising, and children's health before you went to Walden Fair Start with (child's name)? No interest - Low interest - Medium interest - Eugh interest - Very high interest -

4b) M e r you went to Waiden Fair Start with (child's name) did your interest Stay the same- Increase- Decrease-

For parents whose childien obtuined fo110~r;up rnslt9 on the DPS cri Wd&n Fair Starî:

la) M e r Walden Fair Start, did (child's name) see hidher famüy doctor or other professional, for example a psychoiogist, for hidher general development? Yes - No - 1 b) I f Yes: Was (child's name) given any help or senrices for hidher general development? Yes- No- OptionaZ comments

2a) Does (child's name) have other irnpairments (e.g., vision, hearing, etc ...) that contributed to hisnier developmental test results? Yes- No- , if yes SpecifL-

2b) Ifyes: J3ave (impaitment(s) mentioned) been addressed? Yes- No- rjyes, *cifi

2c) Did you taik to (child's name) tacher about any concems you have about his/her (irnpairment(s) mentioned)? Yes- No-

3) Did you tak to (child's name) teacher about any concems you have about h i d e r developrnent? Yes - No

4) Did you ask (child's name) teacher to give h i d e r extra help in class? Yes N o -

For Parents who did not Aîtend Wd&n Fair S m :

1) How much are you interested in information on chiid development, e.g., watching t.v. shows or reading books that give parents advice on child development, chiid-raising, and children's hedth? No interest - Low interest - Medium interest - High interest - Very high interest -

2) You and (child's name) did not go to Walden Fair Start in May, 1998. Can you tell me why you and (child's narne) did you not go to Walden Fair Start?

Demugraphic Questions For &parents padapaîhg in the mdy:

1) What is your relationship to the child? [ Mother - Father- Stepmother- Stepfather- Guardi- Grandparent- ]

2) What age are you? Are you under 2 0 20-29 - 30-39- 40% 50-59- 60 and over-

3) What is the highest level of education you have completed? [ Secondaxyhigh school - Some trade, technicai, or vocational school, or business coiiege Diplorna or ceriifkate fiom trade, technical or vocational school, or business colege - Some community cofiege - Diploma or certifiate fkom cornrnunity college - Some university - Bachelors or undergraduate degree - Masters or eamed doctorate Other - Please Spec* 1

4a) Are you currently working? Y- No- 4b) Ifyes, What is your job?

5) What is your marital status? S i n g l e Mamiecl- Cornmon-law- Divorcecl- Widowed-

6) How many people live in yow home? Teil me what each person's relationship is to (child's name) (Ask respondent to specz%)I the members of the household use codes to check off the mernbers of the hmsehold and the -bers of each) [ The members of the household are: rnother - father step-mother aep-father - brother(s) ,howmany- sister(s) , bow many - grandparents- other- specifL 1

7) What language(s) are spoken in your home?

8) What is (child's name)'s first language?

9a) The year before this school year did (child's name) go to daycare or preschool? Y e s NO- Full-time or Part-the- Specm 1 Ob) . . . babysat by a fiend, relative, or paid sitter? Y- No- Full-tirne- or Part-the- Specify 1 lc) Did (chiid's name) go to the Wdden Play & Leam Co-operative? Yes- No_

Also Ask questiions 1-4 for other pmenUgumdian

I ). . . relationship to the child? [ Mot her- Father- S t e p m o t h c Stepfather- Guardian_ Grandparent- ]

2). . . age? under 20- 20-29 3 0-3 9- 40-49- 50-59- 60 and over-

3 ) . . . highest level of education completed? [ Secondaryhgh school Some trade, technical, or vocational school, or business college - Diploma or certificate fiom trade, technicd or vocational school, or business coilege - Some community coliege Diploma or certifkate hom community coiiege - Some university - Bachelors or undergraduate degree - Masters or earned doctorate Other - Please Spec* 1

4a) . . . currently working? Yes- No- 4b) Ifyes, job?

5 ) . . .marital status? S i n g l e W e d - Common-law_ Divorceci- Widowed-