Tables and data related to the presentation on Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessments, as they relate to IA children from Russia and how schools fare when compared to private neuropsychologists when assessing students with CDT for interventions and services.

1. PARENT PERCEPTOINS
OF TRAUMA-INFORMED
ASSESSMENTS
Camille Mora
TABLES RELATED TO THIS STUDY
5/9/18

2. 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 = 131)
White/Caucasian/Anglo 155 100.0
Sex of the Child (n = 131)
Female 69 52.7
Male 59 45.0
Gender non-conforming 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

3. Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Types and Accuracy of Assessments
Variable N %
Type of Assessment Completed
Neuropsychologist 20 14.6
School District 46 33.6
Both 71 51.8
Assessment accuracy (Child skills/needs)
Neuropsychological 18 13.7
School District 71 54.2
Both 15 11.5
Neither 27 20.6
Accurately represented child
Neuropsychological 86 63.2
School District 13 9.6
None 37 27.2
Has your child had a neuropsychological
assessment
Yes 45 32.4
No 94 67.6
Neuropsychological evaluation: My child
received a trauma-informed assessments
Neuropsychological assessment 11 16.0
School district assessment 21 30.0
Both 38 54.2
School district evaluation: My child received a
trauma-informed assessments
Neuropsychological assessment 9 07.6
School district assessment 38 32.2
Both 71 60.1

4. Table 4
Reliability Statistics for the School Use Scale
School Use Scale Items N M SD Skew
The school district provided an accurate
assessment 119 3.00 1.24 .34
Assessment was trauma-informed 119 4.09 1.11 -.89
Recommendations matched what I felt my
child needs 119 3.23 1.32 .08
Assessment informed my child’s IEP 119 2.68 1.33 .56
I would recommend this assessment to other
IA parents 119 2.80 1.37 .31
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.
Table 5
Reliability Statistics for Neuropsychological Assessment Use Scale Items
Neuropsychological Assessment Use Scale
Items N M SD Skew
Provided an accurate assessment. 73 2.34 .62 1.61
Recommendations matched what I felt my child
needed. 73 2.52 .877 1.57
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.

5. Table 6
Accuracy of Assessment Based on Type
Recommendations from the school matched what I
felt/feel my child needs.
129 3.21 1.30
This assessment informed my child’s IEP. 126 2.67 1.30
My child received a trauma-informed assessment. 129 4.02 1.13
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.
Item N M SD
Neuropsychological Assessment
The neuropsychologist provided an accurate
assessment.
56 2.45 .711
I would recommend this type of assessment to
other parents of internationally adopted children.
41 2.51 .746
Recommendations from the neuropsychologist
matched what I felt/feel my child needs.
70 2.56 .862
This assessment informed my child’s IEP 73 2.97 1.03
My child received a trauma-informed assessment 82 3.09 1.09
School District Assessment
The school/district provided an accurate
assessment.
134 2.96 1.20
I would recommend this type of assessment to
other parents of internationally adopted kids.
129 2.78 1.33

6. Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Confidence in Trauma-Informed Assessments
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.
Table 8
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
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.

7. Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for School Confidence Scale Items
School Confidence Scale Items N M SD Skew
My child is included in school activities. 86 2.20 1.24 1.20
School provided my student with an
appropriate IEP.
86 2.29 0.91 0.38
My child’s teacher provides support in the
classroom for my child. 86 2.30 0.99 0.52
Interventions align with my child’s IEP. 86 2.34 0.94 0.68
My child feels safe at school. 86 2.35 1.38 0.71
School provides appropriate assessments. 86 2.50 0.97 0.13
School honors and fulfills my child’s IEP or
504.
86 2.52 1.34 0.51
I am pleased with the services my child
receives.
86 2.55 0.97 0.28
I am happy with how the school meets my
child’s needs. 86 2.60 0.99 0.23
The school supports my child’s needs. 86 2.67 1.38 0.56
The school follows through on what they say. 86 2.77 1.30 0.49
My child is important to their school. 86 2.80 1.44 0.45
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.

8. Table 10
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
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.
Table 11
Intercorrelations for the Five Scales (N = 81)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
School Use Scale -- .13 .13 .07 .72**
Neuro. Assessment Scale -- .04 .12 -.06
Confidence in TI Scale -- .39** .16
Appropriate Intervention Scale -- .11
School Confidence Scale --
* p < .05; ** p < .01

9. Table 12
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 T.I. 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 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.
Table 13
Scale Means and Standard Deviations Disaggregated Type of
Assessment
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
Standard Deviation 0.82 0.97 0.52
Confidence in T.I. Scale
N 21 49 73
Mean 2.57 2.87 2.54
Standard Deviation 0.66 0.73 0.75
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.

10. Table 14
One-Way Analysis of Variance Table Comparing Type of Assessment on
the 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
Within groups 64 33.97 0.53
Total 66 37.45
Confidence in T.I.
Scale
Between groups 2 3.23 1.62 3.02 .05
Within groups 140 74.92 0.54
Total 142 78.16
Table 15
Chi-square Analysis Asking if Assessment was Trauma-Informed
Variable N 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

11. Table 16
Type of Assessment
Type of Assessment Variable N %
Types of assessments completed
(n = 137)
Neuropsychological 20 14.6
School 46 33.6
Both 71 51.8
Which of the following assessments
most accurately represented your child’s
skills/needs?
(n = 137)
School District 18 13.7
Neuropsychological 71 54.2
Both fine 15 11.5
Neither 27 20.6
Which assessment most accurately
represented your child? (n = 136)
Neuropsychological 86 63.2
School 13 9.6
None 37 27.2
Has your child had a neuropsychological
(trauma-informed) evaluation?
(n = 139)
Yes 45 32.04
No 94 67.6

12. Table 17
T Test Results for Assessment on the three Scales for RQ2
Variable M SD t df p D
Appropriate
Intervention 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 .37 -0.17
No (n = 44) 2.38 0.87
Yes (n = 93) 2.54 0.95
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.
Table 18
Scale Means and Standard Deviations Disaggregated Type of
Assessment
Type of Evaluation
Scale Neuropsych. School/District Both
Appropriate Interv./Opp. Scale
N 21 49 73
Mean 2.70 5.01 2.29
Standard Deviation 1.23 1.68 1.18
School Confidence Scale
N 19 46 72
Mean 2.22 2.51 2.54
Standard Deviation 0.86 0.87 0.97
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.

13. Table 19
One-Way Analysis of Variance Table Comparing Type of Assessment on
the Three Scales
Source df SS MS F p
Appropriate Int. Scale
Between groups 2 225.87 112.94 59.78 .00
Within groups 140 264.51 1.89
Total 142 490.37
School Conf. Scale
Between groups 2 1.59 0.79 0.92 .40
Within groups 134 115.22 0.86
Total 136 116.80
Table 20
Instructional Practices Used in My Child’s School
Note. Ratings based on a Likert-Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly Disagree.
Item N M SD
Trauma-informed instructional practices (would) help
my child succeed in school. 192 1.90 1.04
My child is more secure in a trauma-informed
environment. 192 2.14 1.01
My child does better in a trauma-informed school. 188 2.35 .993
My child's teacher uses trauma-informed instructional
practices in my child’s classroom. 193 3.70 1.18
My child's school uses trauma-informed instructional
practices. 195 3.74 1.17