MWERA Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessment Conference Paper

1
PARENT PERCEPTIONS OF TRAUMA-INFORMED ASSESSMENTS
By Dr. Camille Mora Ed.D.
Abstract
This study focuses on two research questions: Do trauma-informed assessments offer students
with a history of CDT more accurate assessment results when compared to traditional assessments
completed by local school districts, as perceived by parents? Do trauma-informed assessments affect a
parent’s belief that their child has more appropriate classroom interventions as a result of having completed
a trauma-informed assessment?
This study looks at these research questions with the understanding of how complex developmental
trauma (CDT) impacts the developing brain of a child. The implications of this study are that participating
parents felt that having neuropsychological assessments, or both the neuropsychological assessment and
the school/district assessment, meant their children received more appropriate interventions, increased
educational opportunities, and more appropriate classroom interventions, when compared to the
perceptions of parents whose children only received a school/district assessment.
Introduction
Complex developmental trauma (CDT), the exposure of a child to trauma early in childhood (from
0 to 5 years old), can have a profound effect on a child’s neurological development (Call, Purvis, Parris, &
Cross, 2014). In fact, “[early] trauma and stress can . . . [trigger] delays in social competence, development
of dysfunctional coping behaviors, and significantly alter a child’s brain chemistry” (Purvis, Cross,
Dansereau, & Parris, 2013, p. 361). When children experience CDT, it can affect the way they learn and
may have consequences for the way they should be taught. Many students with a history of CDT may need
classroom intervention strategies in order to be successful and feel safe at school (Forbes, 2012). In order
to access appropriate interventions, students with a history of CDT need to be accurately assessed.
Currently, children who have experienced early trauma are not being assessed appropriately for
services in public schools (Gustafson, Svensson, & Fälth, 2014; Stevens, 2015). This means that children

2
with CDT are not even being identified by schools, and without accurate identification, these students
cannot receive appropriate interventions. As a result, students with a history of early trauma are being
marginalized and underserved within schools.
This study looks at whether trauma-informed assessments offer benefits to students with a history
of early trauma (also known as CDT), with respect to providing better identification and thus interventions
and strategies to enable these students to learn and participate in classroom and school settings.
For the purposes of this study, a trauma-informed assessment is an assessment conducted by a
neuropsychologist and takes into account the early trauma history of the child being assessed.
This study also only focuses on Russian-born, school-age children who have been adopted by
families in the United States of America and on their parents. This sample was selected to present a
homogenous grouping of similar, early trauma experiences. Power was calculated using Optimum Design
software. It was also imperative to have a large enough grouping of families whose children had had private,
trauma-informed neuropsychological evaluations completed to compare to students who had not had
trauma-informed evaluations done. I needed to have at least 200 participants in the study, which gave me
the possibility of achieving statistically significant data at least 80% of the time (Creswell, 2009).
Work Done
This study is a quantitative methodological study. Quantitative research was selected because it is
best suited to answer the research questions. I explored the relationships between variables and answered
questions of difference and association. For these purposes, difference inferential statistics, such as: t-
tests, one-way ANOVA, and chi-square were used. This study utilized survey data from many Russian
adoptive families across the United States. In this study, the variables were measured using SPSS, and I
collected numbered data using Qualtrics.
This study concerned parent perceptions of the effects of trauma-informed assessments for IA
students on their ability to obtain accurate identifications, resulting in appropriate interventions. Two
research questions guided the data analysis for this study.

3
Quantitative analyses reported in this section include a range of descriptive and bivariate statistics.
First, descriptive statistics were used to test for normal distribution of the variables. Following, Cronbach’s
alpha was computed to assess the internal consistency of the items that were summed to create five scales
that would be used for later analysis. The scales were school use scale, neuropsychological assessment
use scale, confidence in trauma-informed assessment scale, appropriate intervention scale, and school
confidence scale. Once consistency was confirmed, descriptive statistics were run to test the normal
distribution and correlations were run to test the relationship between scales. Next, independent t tests
were calculated to investigate differences between the five scales and students having a
neuropsychological assessment completed. A one-way ANOVA was also calculated to test for differences
between the five scales and the type of assessment each student completed.
In addition, for Research Question 1, a chi-square test was conducted because I had two
categorical variables that were derived from my single population. This test was used to see if there was a
significant association between two ordinal variables. For Research Question 2, frequency counts for
selected variables pertaining to the research question and ratings were conducted. In this chapter, all mean
ratings are on the following Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 =
Disagree to 5 = Strongly disagree; therefore, lower values indicate agreement and higher values indicate
disagreement
In Table 1, I have laid out the research questions and data analysis techniques. For each research
question, I have displayed the data I collected as well as the analyses I conducted to garner that information.

4
Table 1
Research Question and Data Analysis Techniques
Research question Scales
Independent
variables Analysis
1. Do trauma-informed
evaluations offer students with
a history of CDT more
accurate assessment results
when compared to traditional
assessments completed by
local school districts, as
perceived by parents?
School use scale
Neuropsychological
assessment use scale
Confidence in trauma-
informed assessment
scale
Type of
assessment:
1. Neuro.
2. School
3. Both
Neuropsyc.
Conducted?
1. Yes
2. No
Independent
t tests
One-way ANOVA
Chi-square
Frequency counts
2. Do trauma-informed
assessments affect a parent’s
belief that their child has more
appropriate classroom
interventions as a result of
having completed a trauma-
informed assessment?
Appropriate intervention
and opportunities scale
School confidence scale
Type of
assessment:
1. Neuro.
2. School
3. Both
Neuropsyc.
Conducted?
1. Yes
2. No
Independent
t tests
One-way ANOVA
Mean ratings
Survey Variables and Scales
I used 27 survey items to create five scales. Descriptive statistics were calculated in order to
examine items related to the five scales (school use scale, neuropsychological assessment use scale,
confidence in trauma-informed assessment scale, appropriate intervention scale, and school confidence
scale). As noted previously, all mean ratings are calculated on the following Likert scale: 1 = Strongly
agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly disagree.
School use scale. I calculated reliability statistics in order to test the normal distribution of the
school use variables. For the 5-item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .85 (N = 119). It was positive and
greater than .70, meaning it provided good support for internal consistency reliability (Leech et al., 2015).
I combined these five items to create a school use scale for further analysis (Table 2).

5
Table 2
Reliability Statistics for the School Use Scale (N = 119)
School use scale items M SD Skew
The school district provided an accurate assessment 3.00 1.24 0.34
Assessment was trauma informed 4.09 1.11 -0.89
Recommendations matched what I felt my child needs 3.23 1.32 0.08
Assessment informed my child’s IEP 2.68 1.33 0.56
I would recommend this assessment to other IA parents 2.80 1.37 0.31
Note. Ratings based on a Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 =
Disagree, 5 = Strongly disagree.
Neuropsychological assessment use scale. I calculated reliability statistics in order to test the
normal distribution of the school use variables. Two statements were considered with respect to whether
neuropsychological assessments were more accurate and offered better outcomes for IA students. For
the 2-item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .78 (n = 44). It was positive and greater than .70; therefore, it
provided good support for internal consistency reliability (Leech et al., 2015). The two items were
combined to create a neuropsychological assessment use scale for further analysis (Table 3). Originally
this scale was meant to have the same five items as the school use scale, but for neuropsychological
assessments. However, Cronbach’s alpha was low on the neuropsychological assessment use scale.
This could have been due to the relatively small n value of 44. Table 3 displays more information about
the other items related to this scale.
Table 3
Reliability Statistics for Neuropsychological Assessment Use Scale Items
Neuropsychological assessment use scale items N M SD Skew
Provided an accurate assessment. 73 2.34 0.620 1.61
Recommendations matched what I felt my child needed. 73 2.52 0.877 1.57
Table 4 displays the agreement level respondents had to selected statement variables related to
the accuracy of assessments. In the section for neuropsychological assessment, the highest agreement
was for “The neuropsychologist provided an accurate assessment” (M = 2.45). The lowest amount of

6
agreement was for “My child received a trauma-informed assessment” (M = 3.09). In this table, the n
values are low. The low n in relation to the neuropsychological assessment data could have to do with the
practical fact that such an assessment costs around $5,000, compared to the school/district assessment,
which is free to families, and many families choose not to have their child assessed that way. This could
be because only a total of 70 families (53%) reported that their children received neuropsychological
assessments, and as in the rest of the survey, many families did not answer all the question.
The second half of Table 4 displays the ratings of accuracy of school/district assessments. In this
table, the n values are higher than in the previous table, and the standard deviations are higher as well.
Highest agreement was for “This assessment informed my child’s IEP” (M = 2.67). The lowest degree of
agreement was for “My child received a trauma-informed assessment” (M = 4.02).
Table 4
Accuracy of Assessment Based on Type
Item n M SD
Neuropsychological assessment
The neuropsychologist provided an accurate assessment. 56 2.45 0.711
I would recommend this type of assessment to other parents of
internationally adopted children.
41 2.51 0.746
Recommendations from the neuropsychologist matched what I felt/feel
my child needs.
70 2.56 0.862
This assessment informed my child’s IEP 73 2.97 1.030
My child received a trauma-informed assessment 82 3.09 1.090
School/district assessment
The school/district provided an accurate assessment. 134 2.96 1.200
I would recommend this type of assessment to other parents of
internationally adopted kids.
129 2.78 1.330
Recommendations from the school matched what I felt/feel my child
needs.
129 3.21 1.300
This assessment informed my child’s IEP. 126 2.67 1.300
My child received a trauma-informed assessment. 129 4.02 1.130
Confidence in trauma-informed assessments scale. Data in confidence in trauma-informed
assessments variables included five items. For this 5-item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .75 (N = 137).
It was positive and greater than .70, thus it provided adequate support for internal consistency reliability

7
(Leech et al., 2015). The alpha for this confidence in trauma-informed scale indicated good internal
consistancy. These five items were then combined to create the confidence in trauma-informed
assessments scale that was used for further analysis (Table 5).
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Confidence in Trauma-Informed (TI) Assessment Scale
Confidence in TI scale items N M SD Skew
Child’s school uses TI instructional practices 137 3.73 1.20 -0.40
TI instructional practices would help my child succeed 137 1.70 0.91 1.19
Child’s teacher uses TI practices in the classroom 137 3.67 1.22 -0.48
Child is more secure in a TI environment 137 1.96 0.94 0.58
Child does better in a TI school 137 2.21 0.94 0.29
Note. Ratings based on a Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree or disagree, 4 =
Disagree to 5 = Strongly disagree.
Appropriate intervention and opportunities scale. I calculated reliability statistics in order to
test the normal distribution of the school use variables. Three statements were considered with respect to
whether trauma-informed assessments enabled students to receive more appropriate interventions and
opportunities. For the 3-item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .81 (n = 92). It was positive and greater
than .70; therefore, it provided good support for internal consistency reliability (Leech et al., 2015). The
three items were combined to create an appropriate intervention and opportunities scale for further
analysis (Table 6).
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for Appropriate Interventions and Opportunities Scale Items
Appropriate interventions and
opportunities scale items N M SD Skew
TI assessments allowed your child to receive more
appropriate interventions. 92 1.89 1.07 0.24
TI assessments increased educational opportunities for
your child. 92 2.30 1.23 0.53
TI assessments resulted in more appropriate classroom
interventions. 92 2.59 1.36 0.25

8
School confidence scale. I calculated reliability statistics in order to test the normal distribution
of the school use variables. Twelve statements were considered with respect to parents’ confidence in the
school’s ability to meet the needs of their IA student. For the 12-item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .95
(n = 86). It was positive and greater than .70; therefore, it provided good support for internal consistency
reliability (Leech et al., 2015). The 12 items were combined to create a school confidence scale for further
analysis (Table 7).
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for School Confidence Scale Items (N = 86)
School confidence scale items M SD Skew
My child is included in school activities. 2.20 1.24 1.20
School provided my student with an appropriate IEP. 2.29 0.91 0.38
My child’s teacher provides support in the classroom for my child. 2.30 0.99 0.52
Interventions align with my child’s IEP. 2.34 0.94 0.68
My child feels safe at school. 2.35 1.38 0.71
School provides appropriate assessments. 2.50 0.97 0.13
School honors and fulfills my child’s IEP or 504. 2.52 1.34 0.51
I am pleased with the services my child receives. 2.55 0.97 0.28
I am happy with how the school meets my child’s needs. 2.60 0.99 0.23
The school supports my child’s needs. 2.67 1.38 0.56
The school follows through on what they say. 2.77 1.30 0.49
My child is important to their school. 2.80 1.44 0.45
Association Between the Scales
Descriptive statistics were run in order to test the normal distribution of the five scales. The
skewness of the scales is reported in Table 8. From the descriptive statistics, skew can be examined. “If
the skewness is more than +1.0 or less than -1.0 the distribution is markedly skewed” (Leech et al., 2015,
p. 22). If this is the case, it would mean that “one tail of the frequency distribution is longer than the other
and if the mean and median are different, the curve is skewed” (Leech et al., 2015, p. 22). From the data
I can see that most of the variable scales have a skewness between -1.0 and 1.0, but the

9
neuropsychological assessment use scale, shows skewness for the items “Provided an accurate
assessment” to be 1.61 and “Recommendations matched what I felt my child needed” to be 1.57. These
two items are considered nonnormal distributions. However, Leech et al (2015) state, “there are several
ways to check this assumption in addition to checking the skewness value. If the mean, median and
mode, are approximately equal, then you can assume that the distribution is approximately normally
distributed” (p. 34). In the case of these two items, the means are 2.45 and 2.56, respectively; the
medians are 2.0 for each item and the mode is 2 for each item. This would meet the criteria laid out by
Leech et al. Although these items are skewed, the t tests and ANOVAs were sufficiently robust so that I
was able to proced with the analysis. That said, it is important to note that there should be some caution
with the interpretations as one of the items was moderately skewed.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for Five Scales
Scale n M SD Skew
School use scale 134 3.12 0.98 0.26
Neuro. assessment use scale 76 2.48 0.76 0.28
Conf. in T-I assessment scale 196 2.79 0.79 0.17
Appropriate interv. and oppr. scale 170 3.58 1.93 0.19
School confidence scale 162 2.41 0.91 0.19
Correlations were run for the five scales. Two relationships were statistically significant. One was
the association between the confidence in trauma-informed assessment scale and the school use scale.
The direction of the correlation was positive. This means school/district assessments were correlated to
confidence in trauma-informed practices. The second was confidence in TI scale versus appropriate
intervention scale. The direction was positive, which means confidence in TI was correlated to
appropriate interventions. These intercorrelations were significant at the p =.01 level, where N = 81
(school use scale = 0.72, confidence in TI scale = 0.39). (See Table 9).

10
Table 9
Intercorrelations for the Five Scales (N = 81)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
School use scale -- 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.72**
Neuro. assessment scale -- 0.04 0.12 -0.06
Confidence in TI scale -- 0.39** 0.16
Appropriate intervention scale -- 0.11
School confidence scale --
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Results
Findings presented in this section are organized according to the research questions.
First Research Question
Research Question 1 asked, “Do trauma-informed evaluations offer students with a history of CDT
more accurate assessment results when compared to traditional assessments completed by local school
districts, as perceived by parents?”
Tests for Differences
Differences between three of the scales were investigated. This was done through independent t
tests and one-way ANOVA. There were statistically significant differences for the neuropsychological
assessment use scale, t(65) = 2.32, p = .02; thus, respondents who did not receive a neuropsychological
assessment reported higher mean average scores on the neuropsychological assessment use scale (Table
10).
Table 10
t-Test Results on Completion of Neuropsychological Assessment for All Scales
Variable M SD t df p d
School Use Scale -0.46 126 .65 -0.08
No (n = 40) 3.08 1.02
Yes (n = 88) 3.16 0.99
Neuro. Assess. Scale 2.32 65 .02 0.69
No (n = 12) 2.86 0.80
Yes (n = 55) 2.34 0.71
Confidence in TI Scale 0.54 141 .59 0.09
No (n = 45) 2.71 0.76
Yes (n = 98) 2.64 0.74
Note. Ratings based on a Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree or disagree, 4 =

11
To compare the three scales to my second independent variable, a set of one-way ANOVAs (or
single-factor analysis of variance) were computed to make inferences about the means. Table 11 shows
the mean of the question “what type of assessment did you child have?” on each of the three scales
associated with Research Question 1 (school use scale, neuropsychological assessment use scale and
confidence in trauma-informed assessment scale). For this research question, two of the values were
statistically significant and will be discussed below.
Table 11
Scale Means and Standard Deviations Disaggregated Type of Assessment on Three Scales
Type of Evaluation
Scale Neuropsych. School/District Both
School Use Scale
n 10 45 73
Mean 3.16 3.21 3.09
Standard deviation 0.62 0.97 1.06
Neuro. Assess. Scale
n 10 20 37
Mean 2.75 2.65 2.22
Confidence in TI Scale
n 21 49 73
Mean 2.57 2.87 2.54
Table 12 displays the one-way ANOVA analysis comparing the type of assessment the child
received (neuropsychological, school district or both) with the three scales assigned to Research Question
1 (school use scale, neuropsychological assessment use scale, and confidence in trauma-informed
assessment scale). The one-way ANOVA calculated the neuropsychological assessment use scale to have
a difference that was statistically significant (p = .04) and for confidence in trauma-informed assessment
scale to be almost statistically significant (p = .052). This is technically above the significance threshold of
.05, but I believe it warrants cautious consideration as a statistically significant difference as the
demographics of this group are extremely homogenous, and with higher n values this difference may very
well be statistically significant.
Post hoc tests were conducted, both with equal variances assumed (with the Tukey HSD) and for
equal variances not assumed (with the Games-Howell test). These tested whether or not the standard

12
deviations were the same. For the neuropsychological assessment use scale, homogeneity was p = .01;
therefore, the variances are equal so I used the Games-Howell and none of the pairs were statistically
significant. Confidence in trauma-informed assessment scale, with respect to homogeneity, was p = .69;
therefore, the variances are equal and so a Tukey HSD test was conducted. The school district group as
compared with both groups was statistically significant at p = .05 (.048 to be more accurate). With the p
value being close here, it is important to note that one of the groups was skewed. That said, in practice,
there are probably also differences between the school district and the neuropsychological group, but since
the n for the neuropsychological group is too small in this study sample, statistical significance was not
found. Scores for both groups were lower on the neuro scale and scores for the school/district group were
higher on confidence in trauma-informed scale.
Table 12
One-Way Analysis of Variance Comparing Type of Assessment on Three Scales
Source df SS MS F p
School use scale
Between groups 2 0.39 0.20 0.20 .82
Within groups 125 125.12 1.00
Total 127 125.51
Neuro. assess. scale
Between groups 2 3.45 1.74 3.27 .04
Total 66 37.45
Confidence in TI scale
Between groups 2 3.23 1.62 3.02 .05
Total 142 78.16
To test whether there were differences between participants who received neuropsychological
assessments and those who received school or district assessments on whether the degree to which the
assessment was trauma informed, I calculated a chi-square statistic. The results were statistically
significant, χ2(209) = 36.95, p = .00. Visual inspection of the crosstabs data in Table 12 reveal that
respondents who had neuropsychological assessments were more likely to agree that the assessment was
trauma informed compared to those who had completed a school/district assessment (Table 13).

13
Table 13
Chi-square Analysis Asking if Assessment was Trauma Informed
Variable Neuro. School χ2 p
36.95 .00
Strongly agree 0 4
Somewhat agree 30 10
Neither agree nor disagree 30 27
Somewhat disagree 7 27
Strongly disagree 15 61
Totals 82 129
Frequency Counts
Frequency counts were collected and analyzed for selected variables related to Research Question
1. Respondents were asked about the types of assessments their child had; 71 respondents (51.8%) stated
that their child had both a school and trauma-informed assessment, while 20 (14.6%) had only completed
a trauma-informed assessment and 46 (33.6%) had completed only a school/district assessment. Next, I
asked the parents which assessment they felt most represented their child’s skills and needs. For this
question, 71 (54.2%) of parents believed the neuropsychologist’s (trauma-informed) assessment was more
accurate, 27 (20.6%) stated that neither was accurate, 18 (13.7%) thought the school district was more
accurate, and 15 (1.5%) thought that both assessments were fine. Parents were asked which assessment
most accurately represented their child, and 86 (63.2%) said that the trauma-informed assessment offered
more accurate representation, while 13 (9.6%) felt the school district’s assessment more accurately
represented their child, and 37 (27.2%) responded that neither assessment accurately represented their
child. Families were also asked if their child had a neuropsychological evaluation (assessment); 94 (67.6%)
of respondents stated they had not, while 45 respondents (32.4%) stated that their child did have a trauma-
informed evaluation (Table 14).

14
Table 14
Type of Assessment
Variable n %
Types of assessments completed (N = 137)
Neuropsychological 20 14.60
School 46 33.60
Both 71 51.80
Which of the following assessments most accurately represented
your child’s skills/needs? (N = 131)
School district 18 13.70
Both fine 15 11.50
Neither 27 20.60
Which assessment most accurately represented your child? (N =
136)
School 13 9.60
None 37 27.20
Has your child had a neuropsychological (trauma-informed)
evaluation? (N = 139)
Yes 45 32.04
No 94 67.60
Second Research Question
The second research question for this study asked, “Do trauma-informed assessments affect a
parent’s belief that their child has more appropriate classroom interventions as a result of having completed
a trauma-informed assessment?” To answer this question, t tests and one-way ANOVAs were calculated
to look for differences between groups based on the independent variables: type of assessment and
whether the child had a neuropsychological assessment. These independent variables were compared to
two scales related to this research question: (a) appropriate intervention and opportunity scale and (b)
school confidence scale. Additionally, frequency counts for selected variables pertaining to the research
question and ratings were conducted. Ratings were conducted for instructional practices used in the child’s
school, effectiveness of trauma-informed assessments, public school’s ability to provide appropriate
services, and educational experience. These ratings are based on a metric Likert scale.
Tests for Differences
The calculated independent t tests were run to compare the means of the different scales against
the independent variables of whether or not the child had a neuropsychological assessment. The
appropriate intervention and opportunity scale was statistically significant at the p = .000 level. In these

15
tests, parents of students who did receive a neuropsychological assessment were more likely to agree their
child had appropriate interventions when compared to parents of students who did not complete a
neuropsychological assessment (Table 15).
Table 15
t-Test Results for Assessment on the Two Scales for RQ2
Variable M SD t df p D
Appropriate intervention and
opportunity scale
3.28 78.32 .00 0.59
No (n = 45) 4.03 1.92
Yes (n = 98) 2.93 1.73
School confidence scale -0.90 135.00 .37 -0.17
No (n = 44) 2.38 0.87
Yes (n = 93) 2.54 0.95
To compare the two scales to my second independent variable (type of assessment completed), a
set of one-way ANOVAs were computed to make inferences about the means. Table 16 shows the mean
of the question “What type of assessment did your child have?” on each of the two scales associated with
Research Question 2 (appropriate intervention and opportunity scale and school confidence scale). Upon
inspection of the table, parents whose children had either both assessments and/or a neuropsychological
assessment were more likely to agree with the items in the appropriate intervention and opportunity scale.
Meaning that these students had more appropriate interventions and opportunities compared to students
who only completed school/district assessments (Table 16).
Table 16
Scale Means and Standard Deviations Disaggregated by Type of Assessment on Two Scales
Type of evaluation
Scale Neuropsych. School/District Both
Appropriate Interv./opp. scale
n 21 49 73
Mean 2.70 5.01 2.29
School confidence scale
n 19 46 72
Mean 2.22 2.51 2.54

16
The one-way ANOVA that was computed showed a statistically significant difference among the
type of assessment conducted and the appropriate interventions and opportunities scale: F (59.78), p =
.00. The other scale was not significant (Table 16). Post hoc tests were conducted for the appropriate
interventions and opportunities scale since it had a p value of .00. Homogeneity was tested and
homogeneity was p = .00. Therefore the variances were not equal so I used the Games-Howell test, since
equal variances were not assumed. The post hoc test indicated that school/district assessments as
compared to neuropsychological assessment had statistically significant differences at p = .00. Also,
school/district assessments as compared to assessments by both was significant at the p = .00 level. The
mean average scores higher for the school/district group on the appropriate intervention scale (Table 17).
Table 17
One-Way Analysis of Variance Comparing Type of Assessment on Two Scales
Source df SS MS F p
Appropriate int. scale
Between groups 2 225.87 112.94 59.78 .00
Total 142 490.37
School conf. scale
Between groups 2 1.59 0.79 0.92 .40
Total 136 116.80
Mean Ratings
Table 18 displays data pertaining to instructional practices used in the children’s school sorted by
the highest mean. Highest agreement was for “Trauma-informed instructional practices (would) help my
child succeed in school” (M = 1.90). The lowest degree of agreement was for “My child's school uses
trauma-informed instructional practices” (M = 3.74). As shown in this table, parents believe trauma-informed
environments and instructional practices would help their children; however, their schools are not providing
them (Table 18).

17
Table 18
Instructional Practices Used in My Child’s School
Item n M SD
Trauma-informed instructional practices (would) help my child
succeed in school. 192 1.90 1.040
My child is more secure in a trauma-informed environment. 192 2.14 1.010
My child does better in a trauma-informed school. 188 2.35 0.993
My child's teacher uses trauma-informed instructional practices in
my child’s classroom. 193 3.70 1.180
My child's school uses trauma-informed instructional practices. 195 3.74 1.170
Parents were asked about the effectiveness of trauma-informed neuropsychological assessments,
and they reported that they agreed that trauma-informed assessments enabled their child to receive more
appropriate interventions, increased educational opportunities for their child, and increased the school’s
understanding of their child, and that their child had more appropriate classroom interventions as a result
of having completed a trauma-informed neuropsychological assessment.
Discussion
In this section, I present interpretations for each of the four major findings of this study. The major
findings will be compared and contrasted with the major findings of works reviewed in the literature review.
Additionally, I present implications for policy, practice, theory, and future research.
First Finding
Using the chi-square test, I found that more parents agreed that the neuropsychological
assessment was trauma-informed compared to the school/district assessment. This means that the
neuropsychological assessment was perceived as offering a more trauma-informed experience for student
with a history of CDT.
Implications for policy. For policy at the institutional, district, state, and/or federal levels, this study shows
that perhaps assessment standards are not comprehensive enough for students with a history of CDT. All
students with confirmed or suspected histories of CDT should be considered for a more comprehensive

18
assessment. Baker (2012) wrote, “Few aspects of instructional practice equal the importance of timely and
accurate assessment and evaluation of student proficiency and progress” (p. 236).
Implications for practice. Schools should utilize multidisciplinary teams to complete a trauma-informed
cognitive or neuropsychological assessment for students with a history of CDT. Resulting interventions
could then be targeted to the areas of need for that child.
Second Finding
The students who received a neuropsychological assessment scored higher on the
neuropsychological assessment use scale, meaning respondents felt the neuropsychological assessment
was accurate and the recommendations matched what they believed their child needed. The parents of
students who had both assessments (neuropsychological assessment and school/district assessment) and
of students who had the neuropsychological assessment scored with more agreement on both the
neuropsychological assessment use scale and the confidence in trauma-informed scale. These two groups
believed the neuropsychological assessment was accurate and the recommendations matched what they
felt their children needed. They also felt that their children did better in a trauma-informed environment and
with trauma-informed instructional practices. At the same time, this group agreed that their children’s
schools were not providing a trauma-informed environment or practices for their children.
Implications for policy. Educational leaders should use this study to inform policy changes to standard
assessments. Assessments should explicitly include trauma-informed practices when assessing students
who are suspected of having or confirmed to have CDT. Also, policy makers and experts should examine
what neuropsychologists are doing that is allowing for more accurate assessments and recommendations
for IA students and use that information to inform practices among school psychologists and IEP teams.
Policy makers should also add students with a history of CDT as a student subgroup in the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This would hold schools, districts, and states accountable for how students
with a history of early trauma are being served in schools. This could also potentially allow funding for
appropriate assessments through ESSA subgroup funding.

19
Implications for practice. In order to improve practice at school sites, schools should provide both the
assessments they are currently using and the assessments conducted by a neuropsychologist to their
battery of tests in order to better serve children with a history of CDT. This would require potential changes
to school psychologist assessment practices and protocols. It would also encourage more school
psychologists to get a neuropsychological assessment certification and school districts to hires
psychologists who have such a certification.
Implications for theory. Educational literature currently does not separate disability theory and CDT. By
separating disability theory so CDT theory is recognized on its own and used in education literature,
researchers could provide those who have suffered early trauma with a unique voice in the work of future
research that would allow educators to better serve IA students within school settings. This would also allow
space where lawmakers could update IDEA criteria so that children with a history of CDT are specifically
addressed and able to qualify under a single disability criterion, allowing them to gain access to services.
Researchers must first be able to use CDT theory within the literature in order to further investigate trauma
for IDEA qualifying purposes.
Implications for future research. The research I have conducted has only examined the assessment
side of the equation. This study has shown that more comprehensive assessments are needed. It is
imperative to also address how to create a comprehensive assessment battery that school districts can
manage, as well as how to use those assessments to inform accurate recommendations and interventions
for IA students. Future research studies should examine the effectiveness of trauma-informed practices in
the classroom and whether trauma-informed schools lead to better academic and social/emotional
outcomes for students with a history of CDT. It is also important for future studies to conduct research on
other populations of students who have been affected by CDT.
Third Finding
Parents of children who had a neuropsychological assessment felt that their children were more likely to
have received appropriate interventions, increased educational opportunities, and more appropriate
classroom interventions compared to the students who did not have a neuropsychological assessment. In

20
fact, parents of students who did not complete a neuropsychological assessment actually disagreed that
their student received appropriate intervention and opportunities.
Implications for policy. State and district policy makers need to make educating their education
professionals at all levels on trauma-informed care and instruction a priority so that children with a history
of early trauma can be better served within the public school system. Trauma-based interventions should
be the standard in schools and classrooms that serve students who have been affected by early trauma.
This can be done through district-wide trainings, preservice teacher requirements, and continued education
within the professional and national board certification requirements.
Implications for practice. States and districts must ensure that special education professionals know how
to write and advise on trauma-informed interventions, to help classroom teachers better serve students with
a history of CDT. For this, trauma-informed practices and interventions should become part of the
requirements for special education certification. Also, educators who work in schools with a high population
of children who have CDT should attend conferences and continued education on trauma-informed
practices.
Fourth Finding
Parents of students who had a neuropsychological assessment or who had both a
neuropsychological assessment and a school/district assessment had more agreement that their student
received appropriate interventions and increased opportunities compared to students who had
school/districts assessments alone. Parents of students who had neuropsychological assessments agreed
that their student received more appropriate interventions, increased educational opportunities, and more
appropriate classroom interventions, as did the group who had completed both assessments
(neuropsychological and school/district). However, parents of students who had only completed the
school/district assessment strongly disagreed that their student received more appropriate interventions,
increased educational opportunities or more appropriate classroom interventions.
Implications for policy. IDEA should change their qualifying criteria to include early childhood trauma, so
that students like the ones in this study can receive the interventions and opportunities they require in order

21
to have access to a free and appropriate public education. Policy makers need to work diligently to add
these criteria so that all students can be served. This would allow students with a history of CDT to have
access to the interventions they need to be successful. It would also give schools a way to qualify these
students for an IEP based on a CDT diagnosis alone.
Implications for practice. Education practitioners must trust the parents and their experience with these
kids and treat them as full partners on IEP/assessment teams. Scandinavian studies have shown that
adoptive parents are more supportive of their children when compared to parents of biological children and
support them in school to a higher degree (Smithgall et al., 2013). Also, adoptive parents demonstrated
more competence in parenting and advocacy when compared to other parenting groups (Baker, 2012).
This was also shown in my study, as revealed in the demographics of the population presented (see
Appendix A). This group of parents had a median household income of $175,000; 86% of the parents had
a four-year degree or higher, and the median age of the parents at the time of their first adoption was 36.
These are more experienced parents with more resources than the average household. As Baker (2012)
illustrated, these parents need to be taken seriously by educators and they need to have a seat at the IEP
table.
Implications for future research. More research should be done with respect to early trauma and student
advocacy. Researchers should examine how advocacy for students with a history of CDT is being
conducted. Researchers should also look at how assessments affect educational opportunities for children.
When assessments are done correctly, those children have access to the interventions and opportunities
they need, but when assessment are conducted poorly, students miss out on the ability to access the
curriculum.
Recommendations
From this research study, I have five comprehensive recommendations for policy and practice. The
recommendations are (a) create comprehensive standard assessment policy, (b) provide trauma-informed
instruction to preservice teachers, (c) create trauma-informed classrooms and schools, (d) form
multidisciplinary teams to complete trauma-informed, cognitive or neuropsychological assessments, and

22
(e) trust parents and their expertise. Each recommendation is based on a synthesis of the prior discussion
of interpretations and implications for the individual findings.
Summary
Childhood trauma affects every demographic of children in the United States; it influences every
race, income level, and culture. Educators and policy makers would be remiss if they continue to dismiss
and overlook the need to assess for and address the effects that CDT has on the children in their schools,
particularly the educational barriers that CDT creates in these children and their ability to learn.
In conclusion, this research should be used to further improve the assessment practices of schools
and districts because, “If you really want to do something about the achievement gap, childhood trauma is
the best place to start” (as cited by Watanabe, 2015, para. 4). Further research should be conducted on
other student populations who have a history of CDT and trauma-informed interventions should be studied
within classroom settings.

23
Acknowledgements
Baker, F. S. (2012, April 20). Making the quiet population of internationally adopted children heard through
well-informed teacher preparation. Early Child Development and Care, 182(2), 223-246.
Call, C., Purvis, K., Parris, S. R., & Cross, D. (2014, September). Creating trauma-informed classrooms.
Adoption Advocate, 75, 1-10.
Forbes, H. T. (2012). Help for Billy: A beyond consequences approach to helping challenging children in
the classroom. Boulder, CO: Beyond Consequences Institute.
Green, M. E. (2013). When rain hurts: An adoptive mother's journey with fetal alcohol syndrome. Pasadena,
CA: Red Hen Press.
Gustafson, S., Svensson, I., & Fälth, L. (2014). Response to intervention and dynamic assessment:
Implementing systematic, dynamic and individualized interventions in primary school. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61(1), 27-43.
Jacobs, E., Miller, L. C., & Tirella, L. G. (2010, July 11). Developmental and behavioral performance of
internationally adopted preschoolers: A pilot study. Child Psychiatry Human Development, 41, 15-
29.
Lancaster, C., & Nelson, K. W. (2009). Where attachment meets acculturation: Three cases of international
adoption. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 17(4), 302-311.
Newton, R. P. (2011, October/November). Complex developmental trauma. San Diego Psychologist, 26(5),
14-16.
Pronchenko-Jain, Y., & Fernando, D. M. (2013). Helping families with Russian adoptees: Understanding
unique needs and challenges. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and
Families, 21(4), 402-407.
Purvis, K. B., Cross, D. R., Dansereau, D. F., & Parris, S. R. (2013). Trust-based relational intervention
(TBRI): A systemic approach to complex developmental trauma. Child & Youth Services, 34, 360-
386.
Rosnati, R., & Barni, D. (2010). Italian international adoptees at home and at school: A multi-informant
assessment of behavioral problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 783-786.

24
Smithgall, C., Cusick, G., & Griffin, G. (2013, July). Responding to students affected by trauma:
Collaboration across public systems. Family Court Review, 51(3), 401-408.
Stevens, J. E. (2015, May 31). Resilience practices overcome students' ACEs in trauma-informed high
school, say the data. ACES Too High News. Retrieved from
https://acestoohigh.com/2015/05/31/resilience-practices-overcome-students-aces-in-trauma-
informed-high-school-say-the-data/
Westhues, A., & Cohen, J. S. (1997). A comparison of the adjustment of adolecent and young adult inter-
country adoptees and their siblings. SAGE Journals, 20(1), 47-65.
Winder, F. (2016). Childhood trauma and special education: Why the "IDEA" is failing today's impacted
youth. Hofstra Law Review, 44(601), 601-634.
References
Baker, F. S. (2012, April 20). Making the quiet population of internationally adopted children heard through
well-informed teacher preparation. Early Child Development and Care, 182(2), 223-246.
Call, C., Purvis, K., Parris, S. R., & Cross, D. (2014, September). Creating trauma-informed classrooms.
Adoption Advocate, 75, 1-10.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Forbes, H. T. (2012). Help for Billy: A beyond consequences approach to helping challenging children in
the classroom. Boulder, CO: Beyond Consequences Institute.
Gustafson, S., Svensson, I., & Fälth, L. (2014). Response to intervention and dynamic assessment:
Implementing systematic, dynamic and individualized interventions in primary school. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61(1), 27-43.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics use and
interpretation (5th. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Purvis, K. B., Cross, D. R., Dansereau, D. F., & Parris, S. R. (2013). Trust-based relational intervention
(TBRI): A systemic approach to complex developmental trauma. Child & Youth Services, 34, 360-
386.

25
Smithgall, C., Cusick, G., & Griffin, G. (2013, July). Responding to students affected by trauma:
Collaboration across public systems. Family Court Review, 51(3), 401-408.
Stevens, J. E. (2015, May 31). Resilience practices overcome students' ACEs in trauma-informed high
school, say the data. ACES Too High News. Retrieved from
https://acestoohigh.com/2015/05/31/resilience-practices-overcome-students-aces-in-trauma-
informed-high-school-say-the-data/
Watanabe, T. (2015, May 18). Compton unified sued for allegedly failing to address trauma-affected
students. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-trauma-
school-lawsuit-20150518-story.html

26
Appendices
APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic data for the surveyed population are displayed below. Table 1 illustrates that the
families in this study ranged in household income from five families making less than $50,000 a year (3.1%)
to 18 making more than $250,000 a year (11.2%), with the median income being $175,000. All but 23
parents (14.3%) had at least a four-year degree, with 74 (45.9%) also having a graduate degree. When
asked about their age at the time of their family’s first adoption, 103 parents (64.0%) were between 31 and
41 years of age at the time of their first adoption, with a median age at adoption of 36. For racial identity,
all 155 (100%) identified with some variety of Caucasian. I enquired about the children’s sex, and 69
respondents (52.7%) reported that their child was female, 59 (45.0%) reported their child was male, and
three (2.3%) had children who identified as “gender nonconforming.” Less than 1% of families had children
who were older than 12 years at the time of adoption, while 111 families (84.7%) adopted their children
when they were 4 years of age or younger. When asked about their child’s health at the time of adoption,
62 (47.0%) reported that their child had “correctable health problems,” 25 (18.9%) reported that their child
had “permanent health problems,” and 45 (34.1%) reported that their child was in good health (Table 1).

27
Table 1
Variables Pertaining to Demographics
Variable n %
Median household income (N = 161)
Below $50,000 5 3.1
$50,001 - $100,000 45 28.0
$100,001 - $250,000 93 57.8
Above $250,000 18 11.2
Parent’s education (N = 161)
No college or some college 13 8.1
2-year college or trade school graduate 10 6.2
4-year degree 64 39.8
Master’s degree 59 36.6
Doctoral degree 15 9.3
Race of the parent (N = 155)
White/Caucasian/Anglo 155 100.0
Sex of the child (N = 131)
Female 69 52.7
Male 59 45.0
Gender nonconforming 3 2.3
Age at the time of first adoption (N = 161)
Under 30 12 7.5
31-40 103 64.0
41 or older 46 28.6
Age of the child when they arrived home (N = 131)
0-11 months 25 19.1
1-4 years 86 65.6
4.1-6 years 8 6.1
6.1 or older 12 9.2
Child’s health at the time of adoption (N = 132)
In good health 45 34.1
Correctable health problems 62 47.0
Permanent health problems 25 18.9

28
APPENDIX B
BEST PRACTICES FOR A TRAUMA-INFORMED
EDUCATIONAL SETTING
Best Practice Lit. Citation
Trauma-informed academic setting. Call et al., 2014, p.2
Reframe student behaviors as survival strategies rather than
disobedience. Call et al., 2014, p.3
Keep classroom stimulation down and keep visual distractions on
the walls to a minimum. Keep classrooms clutter free. Call et al., 2014, p.5
Teachers learn behavioral intervention strategies that do not
exacerbate trauma. Call et al., 2014, p.5
Teachers partner with fearful children to help them
overcome fears. Call et al., 2014, p.5
Give children a voice and hear their feelings. Call et al., 2014
Give children undivided attention, choices (control can create a
safe feeling), compromises, and re-dos. Call et al., 2014
Classrooms should not be too loud, tactile activities should
have an alternative (such as a brush instead of finger paint). Call et al., 2014
Soft eye contact, warm voice, greet students at the door. Call et al., 2014
Teachers understand emotional regulation and teach students
to calm themselves Call et al., 2014,
Avoid coercive approaches, which do NOT work with this
population. Call et al., 2014
Labeling feelings, so kids can learn to communicate them. Call et al., 2014

MWERA Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessment Conference Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to MWERA Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessment Conference Paper

Similar to MWERA Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessment Conference Paper (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MWERA Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessment Conference Paper