View All Assessments  Hide/Show details  Show assessment plan  Download to word   View printable   
 
University of Rochester Warner School of Education
ED405 ASSESSMENT REVIEW, CRITIQUE, ADMINISTRATION, AND REPORT Inclusion (2014 standards)
 
Candidate: Evaluator:
Semester and Year (required): Course #:
Date:
Description:
 
This three-part assignment is aligned with CEC Professional Standards.
 
Parts 1 & 2: Test evaluation and critique(CEC 1, 2, 4, 6)
Candidates will conduct a thorough scholarly and professional review and critique of an assessment instrument of their choice.
 
Access the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY) through the UR Library catalog. Using the information found in the Mental Measurements Yearbook review of your test (note that usually there will be reviews by 2 different authors in the MMY; cite them both), information from the test's norming/technical manual, and at least two other peer-reviewed journal articles about the test you have selected, write a review that includes the following information:
 
In this process you must review the following:
  • test coverage and appropriate usage
  • the purpose/rationale of the instrument
  • theoretical construct(s) / basis of the instrument
  • the content and structure of the instrument, consistent with its theoretical construct(s)
  • the standardization of the instrument (norming process, samples, validation)
  • the reliability and validity (and critique all issues connected to this)
  • process for administration
  • how the results of the assessment instrument are reported / interpreted
  • discussion of item and test bias
 
Then, you must critique the assessment instrument, including
  • the premise and rationale of the instrument
  • the theoretical constructs guiding the assessment process, procedures, and protocols of the instrument
  • the reliability and validity of the assessment
  • identify variables that affect the instrument, including examiner, examinee, test, context, language, and cultural variables
  • What strengths and limitations of the assessment itself became evident when you reviewed / used it?
    • you may wish to cite peer-reviewed articles about this assessment in support of your opinions
  • What else did you learn about the assessment process during this activity?

 
This part of the assignment must be informed by relevant literature and must be in proper APA format. Papers should be approximately 8-10 pages.
           
Part 3: Test administration and formal psycho-educational report (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
 
The purpose of this project is to develop your skill and understanding with regard to the use of assessment data in making instructional decisions. Candidates will administer a standardized test to a learner and describe and discuss your findings in a formal report. You must also make educational recommendations based on the findings. The test you select may address either achievement or aptitude, but either way it must be nationally normed and standardized. This may be the same test you used for your Test Review and Critique, or it can be a different one. If you use the same test, in this assignment you need only provide a SUMMARY of the reliability, validity, and norming information; do not simply copy everything that you wrote for your Test Critique. Depending on the test you select, you may need to arrange to work under the direction of a licensed school psychologist to complete this assignment.
 
Formal Report Components
 
In your report, cite the test itself as well as any related literature you draw upon. Follow APA manuscript style (6th edition) in your report. Provide a complete picture of what you learned about the student who took the test, but focus approximately half of your discussion on what you learned about the strengths and limitations of the assessment you used and on your experience as the test user.
 
Please address the following in your report:

  • Provide a summary of the identifying information for the student (be sure to use a pseudonym!)
  • Give a concise description of the measure you administered
  • Describe the reason(s) for referral (if any), the environment, and the student's behavior(s) during testing
    • Describe any test adjustments that were made, based on presenting student needs, including language or communication needs, and provide supporting reasons for instrument adaptation
  • Discuss the assessment results and your interpretation, based upon your analysis of the student's pattern of errors
    • according to this assessment, what are the student’s strengths and any specific area(s) of need?
    • what is the student's present level of performance based on this assessment?
    • are these findings consistent with what you know of the learner from other sources of information?
    • what is (or might be) the effect of the student’s ability and/or disability on functioning within natural settings?
    • what are your specific educational / instructional recommendations for the student's school environment?
  • Summarize your findings and recommendations

CAUTIONARY NOTE
Prior to administering any measure, it is essential that permission be obtained from parents (for students under 18 years of age) or adults to whom you are administering an assessment. In obtaining permission please explain that this is a learning experience for you and that the confidentiality of the testee will be protected (all identifying information will be changed).
 
MAINTAINING CONFIDENTIALITY OF ASSESSMENT MATERIALS AND RESULTS (DATA) IS IMPERATIVE FOR ALL CLASS ACTIVITIES. PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROJECT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO UTILIZE YOUR ASSESSMENT DATA TO MAKE PLACEMENT DECISIONS

 
Part 1: Assessment Instrument Review
Based on the Assessment Review, Critique, and Administration and Report submitted and using the following rubric, evaluate the extent to which the candidate provided evidence of meeting the assignment criteria and the specific CEC standards incorporated into the rubric:
 
1. Insufficient: The criteria described are not met. In order to obtain a passing grade in this assignment, the candidate must redo all or part of the assignment as directed by the course professor.
2. Emergent/needs improvement: There is only partial evidence that the criteria described are addressed. Minor revisions in the assignment are called for / more evidence is needed to address the shortcomings identified and should be completed before determining proficiency and the candidate can “pass” this assignment.
3. Basic proficiency: There is evidence that the candidate demonstrated the criteria described at the minimally acceptable level. The Assessment Administration and Report assignment can be used as evidence that the candidate is able to administer a standardized test, describe and discuss findings in a formal report, and make educational recommendations related to the findings. 
4. Outstanding performance: The Assessment Administration and Report assignment fully meets the criteria described and provides an outstanding example that the candidate is able to thoroughly and comprehensively administer a standardized test, completely describe and discuss findings in a formal report, and make clear and appropriate educational recommendations related to the findings.

Assessment Review, Critique, Administration, and Psycho-educational Report 
INC405 1.1 Test information (CEC: 4) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate is unable to identify, or identifies incorrect identification of what the test claims to assess; demonstrates minimal or no knowledge of the purpose / rationale or how the test is used
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate demonstrates some knowledge of what the test covers, how it is used, and the rationale guiding the test claims
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate reviews test coverage and appropriate usage and identifies the purpose / rationale of the instrument
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate thoroughly reviews test coverage and appropriate usage and clearly identifies purpose / rationale of the instrument
INC405 1.2 Theoretical construct(s), content, and structure (CEC: 1,4,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate makes no or incorrect reference to theoretical construct(s) and does not or provides an incomplete description of test content and structure
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate refers to theoretical construct(s) but provides no description and provides a literal copy of test content and structure from test manual
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate refers to and describes theoretical construct(s) / basis of the instrument and reviews test content and structure reviewed
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate clearly identifies and discusses theoretical construct(s) / basis of the instrument and is able to compare and contrast test content, structure, and purpose with its theoretical construct(s)
INC405 1.3 Norming issues, reliability, and validity (CEC: 1,4) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate makes no or incorrect reference to standardization of the instrument and its reliability and validity; candidate does not address issues of diversity related to norming
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate demonstrates a limited understanding of standardization of the instrument and its reliability and validity and provides literal descriptions from the test manual; candidate minimally addresses issues of diversity related to norming
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate demonstrates a general understanding of standardization of the instrument and identifies and reviews reliability and validity; candidate identifies issues of diversity related to norming
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate demonstrates a thorough understanding of standardization of the instrument consistent with its theoretical construct(s) and clearly reviews and discusses test reliability and validity; candidate clearly articulates norming in the context of diversity
INC405 1.4 Test administration and interpretation (CEC: 4,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides no or demonstrates an incorrect understanding of the process for administration, does not report or reports test scores incorrectly, and does not interpret scores
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate demonstrates limited understanding of the process for administration and reports test scores with minimal interpretation
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate demonstrates a general understanding of the process for administration and a knowledge of interpretive competence such as how to interpret low and high scores
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate demonstrates a thorough understanding of the process for administration and how the results of the assessment instrument are reported / interpreted, including knowledge of interpreting quantitative and qualitative test data
INC405 1.5 Item and test bias (CEC: 4,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate demonstrates no or incorrect understandings of item and test bias, including issues around diversity
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate demonstrates limited understanding of item and test bias, including issues around diversity
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate demonstrates a general understanding of item and test bias, including issues around diversity
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate clearly articulates issues of item and test bias and issues around test bias and student diversity
 
Part 2: Assessment Instrument Critique

Assessment Review, Critique, Administration, and Psycho-educational Report 
INC405 2.1 Premise and rationale (CEC: 4,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides no or incorrect critique of purpose / rational of instrument, makes no connections to the theoretical construct(s), and identifies few or no educational implications of the instrument
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate provides a limited critique of purpose / rational of instrument, makes no connections to the theoretical construct(s), and identifies some educational implications for the instrument
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate provides a general critique of purpose / rational of instrument in relation to the theoretical construct(s) and identifies and discusses educational implications for the instrument
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate provides a comprehensive critique of purpose / rational of instrument in relation to the theoretical construct(s) and clearly identifies and discusses educational implications for the instrument
INC405 2.2 Theoretical constructs (CEC: 1,4,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides no or incorrect critique of theoretical construct(s) and demonstrates misunderstandings of assessment process, procedures, and protocols
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate provides a limited critique of theoretical construct(s) / basis of the instrument and limits discussion to factual and concrete understanding of assessment process, procedures, and protocols
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate provides a general critique of theoretical construct(s) / basis guiding the assessment process, procedures, and protocols of the instrument
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate provides a comprehensive critique of theoretical construct(s) / basis guiding the assessment process, procedures, and protocols of the instrument
INC405 2.3 Reliability & validity (CEC: 4) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides incorrect or no critique of reliability and validity and demonstrates misunderstandings of concepts of reliability and validity
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate provides a limited critique of issues of reliability and validity of the instrument and limits discussion to factual and concrete understanding of reliability and validity
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate provides a general critique of issues of reliability and validity of the instrument
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate provides a comprehensive critique of issues of reliability and validity of the instrument
INC405 2.4 Variables affecting the instrument (CEC: 1,2,4,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate incorrectly or does not identify or discuss strengths and weaknesses of the instrument, including variables that affect the instrument (e.g., examiner, examinee, test, context, language, and cultural variables)
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate provides limited identification and discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the instrument, including variables that affect the instrument (e.g., examiner, examinee, test, context, language, and cultural variables
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate identifies and discusses strengths and weaknesses of the instrument, including variables that affect the instrument (e.g., examiner, examinee, test, context, language, and cultural variables)
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate clearly and thoroughly identifies and critically analyzes strengths and weaknesses of the instrument including variable that affect the instrument (e.g., examiner, examinee, test, context, language, and cultural variables)
 
Part 3: Test Administration and Report

Assessment Review, Critique, Administration, and Psycho-educational Report 
INC405 3.1 Introduction (CEC: 4) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides no background information on the student or it is unclear and ambiguous
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate provides some background information on the student
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate provides complete background information on student
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate provides clear and comprehensive background information on student
INC405 3.2 Instrument description (CEC: 4) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides unclear, ambiguous, or no description of assessments used and chooses an instrument that is not appropriate for purpose
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate provides incomplete description of assessments used, but chooses an instrument that is appropriate for purpose
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate provides a complete description of assessments used and the instrument is appropriate for purpose
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate provides a complete and thorough description of assessments being used and the instrument is appropriate for purpose
INC405 3.3 Administration and observations (CEC: 1,2,4,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides unclear, ambiguous or no descriptions of assessment administration and procedures, assessment environment, and student behavior during assessment
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate provides descriptions of assessment administration and procedures, assessment environment, and student behavior during assessment
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate provides complete descriptions of assessment administration and procedures, assessment environment, and student behavior during assessment
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate provides complete and thorough descriptions of assessment administration and procedures, assessment environment, and student behavior during assessment
INC405 3.4 Analysis and discussion of results (CEC: 1,2,4,5,6) 
(1)Unacceptable / Insufficient
Candidate provides complete and thorough descriptions of assessment administration and procedures, assessment environment, and student behavior during assessment
(2) Needs Improvement / Emerging
Candidate summarizes and explains assessment results, identifies correlations and/or discrepancies among results, and connects assessment results to educational goals and objectives
(3) Basic Proficiency
Candidate summarizes, explains, and interprets assessment results that includes a strength-based overview of the student's performance, identifies correlations and discrepancies among results, and connects assessment results to educationally significant and appropriate goals and objectives
(4) Outstanding Performance
Candidate completely and thoroughly summarizes, explains, and interprets assessment results that include a strength-based overview of the student's performance, analyzes and discusses correlations and discrepancies among results, and strongly connects assessment results to educationally significant and appropriate goals and objectives
 
Adapted in part from the University of South Florida, Department of Special Education
 
Notes: