Birth23.org – Connecticut Birth to Three System



Assessment Tools for use with Under Age One

Multi-Domain Tools With standard scores, age equivalents, & percentiles

TOOL

| Published |Domains |Ages |Norm Sample |Validity |Reliability |Pros |Cons |Reference | |Battelle Develop-mental Inventory 2nd Edition

(BDI- 2) | 2005 |5 domains: Personal-Social

Language(E & R)

Motor (GM,FM)

Cognitive

Adaptive

|Birth -

7 yr. 11 mo |*2500 children

*1000 children up to age 2

* generally representative of 2000 census data(data collected 2002-2003)

*did NOT include special needs children in norm sample

*low percentage of Asian children

|*Mod. -good validity

.75-.91

*Addt’l criterion-related validity studies suggested by reviews |Good

*Overall .99

*Domains

.90 - .96

*SubDom.

.85 - .95

|*Comprehensive

*Technically Adequate

*one month scoring norms up until age 2

*Used by many school districts

*Relative ease of application

*Allows for partial credit |*Limited items in each age level (about 10 in each domain up to age 1)

*Spanish speaking version not normed in spanish |1-3 | |Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Develop-ment 3rd Edition

(Bayley-3) |2006 |5 domains: Cognitive

Language (E & R)

Motor (GM,FM)

Social-Emotional

Adaptive |1-42 mo. |*1700 children for cognitive, motor, language

*Norms for Soc-Em. Scale taken from Greenspan S-E Growth Chart(2004)

*Adaptive – taken from Bayley 2 Adaptive Scale (ABAS-II)

*representative of 2000 census data(data collected 2004)

*10% of normative sample was special needs |*Very Good.

Moderate to significant correlation for all domains |*Strong

*Overall range for Cog,Motor,Language

.86-.91

*Soc-Em & Adaptive

.79-.98 |*Comprehensive

*Technically sound

*Quality measures added for motor

*Less demand on abilities outside the domain assessed

*Scoring norms at 10 day intervals up until

5 mo 15 days

*30 items in each domain up to 1y.o

|*Requires considerable training and oversight – per publisher

*Takes more time to administer

(50-60 min. for < age 1)

*Large kit

*Expensive |4-9

30,31 | |TOOL

| Published |Domains |Ages |Norm Sample |Validity |Reliability |Pros |Cons |Reference | |Develop-mental Assess-ment of Young Children -2nd Edition

(DAYC-2)

|October 2012 |5 domains: Cognition

Communication

Adaptive

Soc-Emotional

Physical

2nd Edition now has sub-tests for Expressive, Receptive, GM& FM

|Birth-

5 yr.

11 mo.

|*1832 children

Representative of US census data 2010

*included children with disability and at-risk

|* validity studies, including sensitivity and specificity are reported

*reviews not yet available

|*reviews not yet available

|*functional assessment lends itself well to functional outcomes

*works well in natural environment

*uses items from child’s home

|* does not have standardized testing items

|12,13 (for 1st Edition)

*not available yet for 2nd edition | |Mullen Scales of Early Learning: AGS Edition |1995 |*Cognitive (includes Visual

Reception, FM, Expressive & Receptive Language)

*Gross Motor

(For eligibility determination must use another tool that measures Adaptive and Personal-Social areas)

|0-68

Mo. |*1849 children

*data collected 1981-1986 and 1987-1989

*based on 1990 census

*Not equally representative of US- heavy weighted in Northeast

*some age ranges have fewer than 100 children

*did not include other than English speaking children

*did not include special needs children

|*Based on studies from first version

(1984)

*Small samples

*Mod. Correla-tion to Bayley (1969)

|*Based on studies from first version

(1984)

*Small samples

*Overall results reliable but 5 scales have less acceptable internal consistency per reviews |*small kit

*easy to administer

*detailed visual motor and tracking items |*Norm data from the 1980’s

*Theoretical basis for test not

supported

in literature

(intellectual devp. based on modality testing: motor& lang) per reviews |10,11 | |TOOL

| Published |Domains |Ages |Norm Sample |Validity |Reliability |Pros |Cons |Reference | |Brigance Diagnos-tic Inventory of Early Development II

(IED-II Standard-ized) |2004/

2010 |*Only 4 domains scored for Under 2 – No cognitive score under 2 y.o.

*5 Domains:

Total Motor – GM & FM

Language – RL &EL

Cognitive

Daily Living

Soc-Emotional

(These 5 skills create Adaptive Behavior composite) |Birth-

7 y.o. |*For Norm-Referenced:

*1,171 children 0-7 years

*generally representative of 2003 census

*includes 18 % from sp. ed and child find but unclear about diagnosis

*some age levels have small samples (esp. over age 5 year old)

* no data on Criterion-ref. part of test |*Content validity good

*Construct validity described as high in manual but reviewers state further data needed

|*Test-retest high for 36 infants under 12 months

*Interrater reliability high (.80-.98)

*Internal consistency uses data from IED-R

|*Norm Reference

& Criterion ref.

*Versatile

*Observation and interview

*1 month scoring norms up to age 2 |*NO Cognitive score available for children under 2 y.o.

|14,15,16 | |Merrill-Palmer Revised Scales of Develop-ment

(M-P-R) |2004 |5 Domains:

Cognitive

Language

Motor

Self-help

Social-Emotional |1 mo.-

78 mo. |*1400 children including 200 atypical

*Nationally representative with 2000 census data

|*Content validity high

*Criterion-related validity strong with Bayley 2

*reviewers suggest studies with other tools

|*Internal consistency high

*Test-retest high but lower in 0-12 mo.

*some samples small and warrant further studies

|*Comprehensive

*normative scores as well as criterion specific scores

*recent addition of motor makes this tool comprehensive |*literature reviews on M-P-R mainly with autism population |17,18,19 | |Motor Assessment Tools

TOOL

| Published |Domains |Ages |Norm Sample |Validity |Reliability |Pros |Cons |Reference | |Peabody Develop-mental Motor Scales 2

(PDMS-2) |2000 |Gross Motor (Reflexes, Stationary, Locomotion,

Obj.Manipulation)

Fine Motor

Grasping

Visual-Motor

Scores:

Standard

Percentiles

Age equivalents |0-72

Mo. |*2,003 children, 46 states Representative of 1997 Census data (data collected 1997-1998)

*Included special needs children in data (9%) |* High concurrent val. with Bayley for GM, FM scales. Lower for correlation -standard scores.

*Criterion validity high for PDMS,

Mullens |*High degree of reliability across 3 areas: content, time, interscorer

*high reported reliability age 0-12 months |*Technically sound

*detailed assessment of GM and FM areas

*standard deviation can be determined for eligibility in motor areas

*includes motor activities program

*often used by school systems |*more emphasis on motor skill acquisition vs. quality descriptors of those skills

|20,21,22

30,31 | |Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) |1994 |Gross Motor

(prone, supine, sitting, standing subscales)

Scores:

Total Raw Scores

Percentile Ranks |0-18 mo. Or walk-ing |*2202 infants 1990-1992 in Alberta, Canada

*Randomized

*Stratification based on age, gender, geographical area.

*Full-term infants

|*Good content and concurrent(PDMS, Bayley, TIMP). Predictive validity studies done. |*High for test-retest, intrarater, interrater reliability |*20-30 minutes observation

*incorporates neuromaturation and dynamic systems theory

*incorporates quality

*can get standard deviation for use on eligibility

*ease of administration |*data collected 1990-1992 |23,24,25

30,31 | |TOOL

| Published |Domains |Ages |Norm Sample |Validity |Reliability |Pros |Cons |Reference | |Test of Infant Motor Perform-ance

(TIMP) |*1995

*Normed age level compar-isons updated 2004 |Gross Motor (27 observed, 26 elicited behaviors)

Scores:

Total Raw Scores

Percentiles

Age Standards |32 wks. Gesta-tion to 4 mo. post-term |*Updated norming standards and age levels in 2004

*Age standards now available for 990 LBW infants from US, from which to base comparisons. |*Good content validity

*Good ecological validity.

*Good concurrent validity with AIMS at 3 mo.

|*Sensitive to changes in motor per-formance due to maturation and medical issues.

*High intrarater, interrater, and test-retest reliability

|*high prediction of motor perf. at 12 mo. and at preschool when tested at 3 mo. with TIMP

*elicited behaviors - high correlation to functional daily activities with caregivers

*takes 30 minutes

*Good for determining optimal from poor motor perform-ance. |*can only be used until 4 mo. post post-term

|24,26-28

30,31 | |Newborn Behavior-al Observa-tion (NBO) |2007 |Observations in:

Autonomic

Motor

Organization

Responsivity

(18 neuro-

Behavioral items to elicit infant’s competencies) |Birth-

2 mo. Post-term |*The NBO is not designed as an evaluation tool but as an observation and relationship-building tool to support positive/nurturing parent-infant interaction.

*National trial with 222 professionals - 98% found NBO excellent or good in providing info. to parents; parents understood infant better, parents learned new information about infant. | | |*parents become better observers of infants

*providers- better “tuned” in to child

*fosters relationship between

parent-infant and

parent-provider.

*could support clinical opinion for eligibility |*Not used for standard scores for eligibility

*developed for use with full term infants but can be used on preterm (no norms) |29 | |TOOL | Published |Domains |Ages |Norm Sample |Validity |Reliability |Pros |Cons |Reference | |Toddler and Infant Motor Evalua-tion (T.I.M.E)

|1994 |Evaluates gross motor proficiencies and difficulties using 8 subtests |4 – 42

Mo. |*731 children without delay for norming sample

*153 children with motor delay for qualitative subtests

* Based on 1990 census, samples from 10 states

* Very low n’s in some age levels

|Authors report: *high accuracy for correct ID of children with and without delay *High construct, discrimi-nate validity – reviewers suggest added support warranted |*reported high

*reviewers state high reported reliabilities may be due to dichoto-mous sample |* Standard scores in motor area *assesses quality

*high accuracy for identification of children with and without delay

*family-friendly, parents handle child |* cannot be used under 4 months old

*significant problems reported in subtest scoring, item difficulty, and ability to measure change when used in case studies (34)

*limited numbers in norm sample – from 1990’s

|32,33,34 | |

November 2012

REFERENCES

1. Newborg J. Battelle developmental inventory 2nd edition examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. 2005.

2. Elbaum B, Gattamorta KA, Penfield PD. Evaluation of the Battelle developmental inventory, 2nd edition, screening test for use in states’ child outcomes measurement systems under the individuals with disabilities education act. Journal of Early Intervention, 2010;32(4):255-273.

3. Athaasiou M. Review of the Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition. In: Geisinger K, Spies R, Carlson J, Plake B, eds. The Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2007:63-71.

4. Acton BR, Biggs WS, Creighton DE, et al. Overestimating neurodevelopment using the Bayley-III after complex cardiac surgery. Pediatrics. 2011;128 (4): 794-800.

5. Anderson PJ, De Luca CR, Hutchison E, Roberts G, Doyle LW. Underestimation of developmental delay by the new Bayley-III scale. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164(4):352-356.

6. Bayley N. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development–third edition: Technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 2006.

7. Moore T, Johnson S, Haider E, Hennessy E, Marlow N. The Bayley-III cognitive and language scales: How do scores relate to the Bayley II? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2011;96(A):39-40.

8. Pearson Education. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development-third edition. . Accessed August 15, 2012.

9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children & Families - Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development, third edition (BAYLEY-III), 2005. Accessed August 15, 2012.

10. Mullen Scales of Early Learning: AGS Edition. In: Plake B, Impara J, eds. The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2001.

11. Bradley-Johnson S. Test Reviews: Mullen Scales of Early Learning. Psychology in the schools. 1997;34(4):379-382.

12. Ogletree B. Developmental Assessment of Young Children. In: Plake B, Impara J, eds. The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2001:390-392.

13. Watson TS. Review of the Developmental Assessment of Young Children. In: Plake B, Impara J, eds. The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2001:392-394.

14. Davis S. Review of the BRIGANCE Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development-II. In: Geisinger K, Spies R, Carlson J, Plake B, eds. The Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2007:157-161.

15. Barton L, Spiker D. Review of the BRIGANCE Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development-II. In: Geisinger K, Spies R, Carlson J, Plake B, eds. The Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2007:161-167.

16. Glascoe F. Brigance Inventory of Early Development II: Standardization Manual. North Millerica, MA: Curriculum Associates; 2010.

17. Loew S. Review of the Merrill-Palmer-Revised Scales of Development. In: Geisinger K, Spies R, Carlson J, Plake B, eds. The Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2007:527-528.

18. Spenciner L, Appl D. Review of the Merrill-Palmer-Revised Scales of Development. In: Geisinger K, Spies R, Carlson J, Plake B, eds. The Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2007:528-530.

19. Roid GH, Sampers JL. Merrill-Palmer-Revised Scales of Development (M-P-R). Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Press; 2004.

20. Folio MR, Fewell R. Peabody Developmental Motor Scales – Second Edition: Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2000:1-68.

21. Bunker L, Kellers P. Review of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales – Second Edition. In: Plake B, Impara J, Spies R, eds. The Fifteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2003:654-657.

22. Stovall DL. Review of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales – Second Edition. In: Plake B, Impara J, Spies R, eds. The Fifteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2003:657-658.

23. Mayson T. Outcome Measures: The Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS). In: Evidence Summary for Rehabilitation Professionals. Sunny Hill Health Center. 2007. . Accessed 8-9-2012

24. Majnemer A, Snider L. A Comparison of Developmental Assessments of The Newborn and Young Infant. Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities. 2005;11:68-73.

25. Jeng SF, Tsou You K, Chen L, Hsiao S. Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Reliability and Validity When Used on Preterm Infants in Taiwan. Physical Therapy. 2000;80:168-178.

26. Campbell S, Kolobe T, Osten E, Lenke M, Girolami G. Constrict Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Physical Therapy. 1995;75:585-596.

27. Flegel J, Kolobe T. Predictive Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance as Measure by the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency at School Age. Physical Therapy. 2002;82:762-771.

28. Campbell S, Levy P, Zawacki L, Liao P. Research Report: Population-Based Age Standards for Interpreting Results on the Test of Motor Infant Performance. Pediatric Physical Therapy. 2006;18:119-125.

29. The Newborn Behavioral Observation system: What is it? The Brazelton Institute.

. Accessed 8-23-2012

30. Spittle A, Doyle L, Boyd R. A Systematic Review of the Clinimetric Properties of Neuromotor Assessments for Preterm Infants During the First Year of Life. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:254-266.

31. Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal Assessments for the Preterm Infant up to 4 Months Corrected Age: A Systematic Review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54:129-139.

32. Bolen LM. Review of the Toddler and Infant Motor Evaluation. In Plake B, Impara J, eds. The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2001:1278-1280.

33. Merz W. Review of the Toddler and Infant Motor Evaluation. In Plake B, Impara J, eds. The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press; 2001:1280-1282.

34. Rahlin M, Rheault W, Cech D. Evaluation of the Primary Subtests of Toddler and Infant Motor Evaluation: Implications for Clinical Practice in Pediatric Physical Therapy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2003; 15:176-183.

35. Therapro. Developmental Assessment of Young Children 2nd Edition (DAYC-2). Accessed 11-15-2012.

November 2012

Assessment Tools - for use with infants Under 1

Additional Domains:

Speech/Language:

Standard Norm-referenced Scores:

Preschool Language Scale 5 (PLS – 5) (2011)

Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test, Third Edition (REEL-3) (2003)

Test of Early Communication and Emerging Language (TECEL) (2011)

Speech Assessment Tools (no standard deviation scores):

Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS DP) (2002)

Early Communication Indicator (ECI) (2011)

Early Language Milestone Scale -2nd Ed. (1993)

MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) (1993)

Social – Emotional:

Standard Scores:

Carey Temperament Scales (CTS) (2000)

Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers (DECA-I/T) (2007)

Greenspan Social Emotional Growth Scale/Chart (SEGC) (2004)

Infant-Toddler Developmental Assessment (IDA) (1995)-multi-domain

Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales (1998)

Multi-domain tools include this area as a component of their testing

Social-Emotional Screening:

Ages and Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional (ASQ: SE) (2002)

Social-Emotional: Focus on Parent-Child Relationship:

Parent-Infant Relationship Global Assessment Scale – Zero to 3

Massie-Campbell A-D-S

Adaptive:

Standard Scores:

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales 2nd Edition (Vineland-II) (2008) – measures Adaptive,

Communication, Motor, Daily Living Skills

Scales of Independent Behavior –Revised (SIB-R) (1996)

Criterion-Referenced Multi-Domain Assessments:

Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children (1993) – 5 domains

Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development (IED-II)(2004)Criterion and norm reference

Carolina Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers with Special Needs 2nd Ed. – 1991 – 5 domains

Early Learning Accomplishment Profile- Revised (E-LAP) (1995)

Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP) – 1994-96 – 5 domains

November 2012

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download