Types of Tests Used in Special Education

By M.S. Rosenberg|D.L. Westling|J. McLeskey Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall

Updated on Jul 20, 2010

Developmental assessments

Screening tests

Individual intelligence tests

Individual academic achievement tests

Adaptive behavior scales

Behavior rating scales

Curriculum-based assessments

End-of-grade, end-of-course, and alternate assessments

Developmental Assessments
Developmental assessments are norm-referenced scales designed to assess the
development of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers in key areas. These areas include fine- and
gross-motor, communication and language, social, cognitive, and self-help skills. If a very young
child is thought to be experiencing delays, and especially if the child is going to be served in an
infant-toddler program, professionals will use developmental assessment scales to identify
strengths and weaknesses. The scales are administered through direct observations of the young
child and parent questionnaires. From the results of the assessment, the evaluator can determine
how delayed or advanced the child is in the key areas just mentioned.
There are numerous developmental assessment scales. Two that are often used are
Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning (3rd ed.)(DIAL-3)(MardellCzudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998) and the Denver Developmental Screening Test II
(Frankenburg et al., 1990).
Screening Tests
As we have said, schools often use screening tests to help find children who might be
below the norm in different areas. Screening instruments are very easy to administer, contain
relatively few items, and can be completed in a relatively brief time, often requiring only a few
minutes per child. They may be pencil-and-paper tests, rating scales or checklists used to

document certain behaviors, or direct observations of skills or abilities. Their purpose is to alert
the school to apotential problem so that more in-depth assessments can be conducted.
Undoubtedly you are familiar with Snellen charts, which schools use to screen for visual acuity.
Examples of other relevant screening tests include the Pre-Kindergarten Screen (Webster &
Matthews, 2000) designed to identify possible pre-academic weaknesses in 4- and 5-year-olds;
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Hoover, Dunbar, & Frisbie, 2001) to quickly test basic academic
skills with groups of students; the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1993)
used to identify children at risk for behavior problems; and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test
(2nd ed.) (KBIT-2) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), intended to provide a quick estimate of verbal
and nonverbal intelligence.
Individual Intelligence Tests
Although intelligence has been discussed and debated for many years, most experts agree
that it can be defined as a capacity for abstract thinking, mental reasoning, good judgment, and
sound decision making. Most important, intelligenceat least as measured by most intelligence
testsgenerally correlates with one's potential to learn academic skills. For this reason,
individual tests of intelligence have almost always been used when students have been
considered for special education. The outcome of this norm-referenced test will help to
determine if the student's learning problems are associated with general subaverage intellectual
abilities or if other factors, such as specific learning disabilities or emotional disturbance, may be
related to the problem. The diagnosis of mental retardation (or intellectual disabilities) requires a
significantly low level of measured intelligence whereas learning special needs and emotional
disturbance assume an average or above-average level of intelligence.
Only a psychologist or diagnostician trained and certified in the administration of specific
intelligence tests, often called IQ (intelligence quotient) tests, can administer them. This is
because, in order for the test to be considered reliable and valid, it must be administered and
scored in a very precise manner.
Most intelligence tests report an overall or general IQ score as well as subscores in areas
such as verbal skills, motor performance, and visual reasoning. Intelligence tests commonly used
in the public schools are the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.) (WISC-III)
(Wechsler, 1991), the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th ed.) (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler,
1986), and the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III) (Woodcock, McGrew,
& Mather, 2001).
Individual Academic Achievement Tests
Most students in special education, and those referred for special education consideration,
will be weak in one or more academic areas. In order to determine most precisely which
academic areas are of concern, a psychologist or educational evaluator will administer at least
one broad ranging, multiple-skill academic achievement test to the child. The results of the test
will tell how the child stands in key academic skills such as reading, written expression,
arithmetic, general information, and specific school subjects.

Traditionally, professionals have used norm-referenced academic achievement tests for formal
evaluations to help determine a student's special education eligibility, placement, and IEP goals.
These tests will also be useful for documenting the academic progress of students over a long
period of time.
Unlike the administration of intelligence tests, which requires the evaluator to receive specific
clinical training, teachers can usually administer academic achievement tests. When they do, they
must carefully follow administration guidelines. Like most special education teachers, you are
likely to take at least one course on special education assessment. During this course you will
probably learn how to administer and interpret at least one academic achievement test. Tests that
you may have the chance to learn about include the Peabody Individual Achievement Test
Revised/Normative Update (PIAT-R/NU) (Markwardt, 1998), the Kaufman Test of Educational
Achievement/Normative Update (K-TEA/NU) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1998), and the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT-II) (Wechsler, 2001).
Adaptive Behavior Scales
A student with mental retardation (or intellectual disabilities) must exhibit a deficit in
adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior skills are those that are especially useful for daily
functioning. Typical items on adaptive behavior scales include daily living skills; community
participation skills; and functioning in specific ability areas such as demonstrating appropriate
social behaviors, communication, motor abilities, and applying basic academic skills.
A teacher or another person can assess a person's adaptive behavior skills by using a
commercially produced adaptive behavior scale. You do not need formal training to use an
adaptive behavior scale, although it is very important that each scale be carefully reviewed
before use. Using the scale requires an evaluator to rate each item using the scale's specific rating
system. The evaluator must either be very familiar with the student (e.g., a teacher, parent, or
caregiver) or interview someone who is knowledgeable about the student's ability.
Among the most commonly used scales are the second edition of the AAMR Adaptive
Behavior Scales (ABS), including the Residential-Community versions (ABS-RC:2) (Nihira,
Leland, & Lambert, 1993) and the School version (ABS-S:2) (Lambert, Nihira, & Leland, 1993).
Other useful scales are the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.) (Vineland-II) (Sparrow,
Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005) and the Scales of Independent BehaviorRevised (Bruininks,
Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
Behavior Rating Scales
Inappropriate behavior is a reason why many children are referred to special education.
To determine and document the extent of behavioral difficulties, evaluators will often use
behavior rating scales. These scales present a list of various challenging behaviors, sometimes
clustered into subcategories, and the rater uses a rating scale (such as a 1-to-5-point scale) to
indicate how frequent or intense the behavior is.
Like adaptive behavior scales, a parent or a teacher may complete the scale or an
evaluator can obtain the relevant information from someone else who knows the child. After
rating different behaviors, the evaluator can then calculate summary scores; and because the
scales are norm-referenced, the scores for the child can be used to determine his or her
behavioral status compared to others.

Rating scales that are frequently used in schools are the Devereux Behavior Rating Scale
School Form (Naglieri, LeBuffe, & Pfeiffer, 1993) and the Social Skills Rating System
(Gresham & Elliot, 1990).
Curriculum-Based Assessment
A school psychologist or teacher can use the norm-referenced tests we have discussed
thus far for documenting a student's status at a particular time, but these tests have drawbacks.
They are commercially produced and therefore costly, they sample a student's ability across an
array of skills but do not hone in on more specific skills, and they report the student's status in
comparison to others when often it is more important to know how a student's skills are
developing in a relatively brief period of time. For these reasons, teachers often use curriculumbased assessments.
Curriculum-based assessments are often made by the teacher to determine the student's
skill level in specific curriculum areas at a certain point in time. For example, if a student has an
IEP goal to learn to read on the fifth-grade level, the teacher is not likely to regularly administer
a standardized reading test to see if the goal is being achieved. Instead, the teacher might ask the
student to read aloud two or three times a week from a fifth-grade reader and answer
comprehension questions abut the material. At each session, the teacher would record and chart
the number of words read correctly, the number misread, and the number of comprehension
questions answered. By using this form of curriculum-based assessment, the teacher could
determine if the student was making progress toward the goal.
Curriculum-based assessment provides a viable approach for evaluating how well a
student responds to intervention (Fuchs et al., 2003). For this reason, teachers are likely to use it
very often when evaluating students who are participating in early intervening activities. By
using the curriculum-based assessment, teachers and other professionals will be able to
determine if a particular intervention is succeeding.
End-of-Grade, End-of-Course, and Alternate Assessments
The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was to close the achievement gap
between students with high and low levels of performance. Schools are required to demonstrate
adequate yearly progress for all students or make significant changes in the way schools are run.
In order to show if schools are making adequate progress, students are tested at the end of each
grade. Currently, this testing applies to children between the third and eighth grades.
Besides NCLB, many states also have educational accountability laws that operate in a
similar way. In North Carolina, for example, the ABCs of Public Education is designed to
provide for school accountability, emphasizing development of skills in the basic subject areas
and allowing as much local decision making as possible (Public Schools of North Carolina State
Board of Education, 2004).
Students in special education are not exempt from these tests; in fact, IDEA 2004 requires their
participation. If students with special needs are unable to participate in the general education
mandated assessment, there are two possibilities. First, they may take the test with
accommodations that allow them to participate. Second, they may participate through an
alternate assessment procedure. Most students with academic special needs and with sensory or
physical impairments are provided with accommodations, whereas students with more severe

intellectual special needs are evaluated using an alternate assessment. In either case, the student's
IEP must indicate how the end-of-grade or end-of-course test is to be given (Browder & Spooner,
2003).