This study examined the accuracy of a curriculum-based assessment for use during the eligibility process for Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) services. The study extended a previous investigation in which performance scores of children without disabilities on the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) were used to set cutoff scores at 6-month age intervals. These cutoff scores were then tested for service eligibility classification accuracy. The present study specifies and examines cutoff scores at more specific age intervals and performance domains. Present study findings largely replicated results of the original study. The AEPS cutoff scores were found to accurately classify most eligible children but did overidentify some ineligible children. The data from these two studies suggest that, to the extent allowed by state criteria, early intervention/early childhood special education personnel may be able to use the AEPS test as a valid assessment tool while qualifying children for IDEA services.
Andrich, D. (1978). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 581-594.
2.
Bricker, D. (Ed.). (2002). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
3.
Bricker, D., & Squires, J. (1999). Ages and Stages Questionnaires: A parent-completed child-monitoring system (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
4.
Bricker, D., Yovanoff, P., Capt, B., & Allen, D. (2003). Use of a curriculum-based measure to corroborate eligibility decisions. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 20-30.
5.
Brigance, A. (1990). Brigance Early Preschool Screen. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
6.
Danaher, J. (2001). Eligibility policies and practices for young children under Part B of IDEA (NECTAS Notes No. 9). Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
7.
Division for Early Childhood. (2007). Promoting positive outcomes for children with disabilities: Recommendations for curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Missoula, MT: Author.
8.
Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Fleiss, J. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
10.
Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (in press). Measuring child outcomes using authentic assessment practices. Journal of Early Intervention .
11.
Hamilton, D. (1995). The utility of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System in the development of quality IEP goals and objectives for young children, birth to three, with visual impairments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
12.
Hsia, T. (1993). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for three to six years: AEPS Test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Amendments of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, U.S.C. 20 § 1400 et seq.
Macy, M., Bricker, D., & Squires, J. (2005). Validity and reliability of a curriculum-based assessment approach to determine eligibility for Part C services. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 1-16.
16.
Mardell-Czudnowski, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1998). Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
17.
Masters, G. (1988). The analysis of partial credit scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 279-297.
18.
National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/CAPEexpand.pdf
19.
National Association of School Psychologists. ( 2005). Position statement on early childhood assessment. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_eca.aspx
20.
Neisworth, J., & Bagnato, S. (2004). The mismeasure of young children. Infants and Young Children, 17, 198-212.
21.
Notari, A., & Bricker, D. (1990). The utility of a curriculum-based assessment instrument in the development of individualized education plans for infants and young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 117-132.
22.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of individualized education plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention , 23, 92-105.
24.
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M., Smith, B., & McLean, M. (2005). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
25.
Shakelford, J. (2002). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA (NECTAS Notes No. 11) . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
