EDUC 622Data Collection Template for Assessment EvaluationsCol.docx

EDUC 622
Data Collection Template for Assessment Evaluations
Collect information about each instrument separately.
This form is used multiple times and is turned in with
assignment, by inserting as a chart in the written report.
Name of InstrumentTest of Early Reading Ability—Fourth
Edition (TERA-4)
Author(s) of InstrumentD. Kim Reid, Wayne P. Hresko, Donald
D. Hammill
Date of Publication2018
PublisherPRO-ED
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)Click or tap here to
enter text.
2. Describe the age range.Click or tap here to enter text.
3. State the purpose of the instrument.
Click or tap here to enter text.
4. Describe the examiner qualifications.Click or tap here to
enter text.
5. Describe the available scores.Click or tap here to enter text.
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e.,
validity, reliability, norms, research).Click or tap here to enter
text.
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-
designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures.Click or
tap here to enter text.
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time.Click
or tap here to enter text.
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well
designed and easy to follow.Click or tap here to enter text.
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with
limited English proficiencyClick or tap here to enter text.
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with
children who have disabilities.Click or tap here to enter text.

12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with
children who have special needs.Click or tap here to enter text.
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument.Click or tap here to
enter text.
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument.Click or tap here to
enter text.
15. Additional comments, information, and observations:Click
EDUC 622
Name of InstrumentWIAT-III.
Author(s) of InstrumentPearson
PublisherPearson
enter text.
enter text.
text.

enter text.
enter text.
EDUC 622
Name of InstrumentGORT-5
Author(s) of InstrumentJ. Lee Wiederholt and Brian R. Bryant
PublisherPRO-ED
enter text.
enter text.

text.
enter text.
enter text.
EDUC 622
Name of InstrumentDiagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR-2)
Author(s) of InstrumentFlorence G. Roswell. Jeanne S. Chall,
Mary E. Curtis, Gail Kearns.
PublisherPRO-ED

enter text.
enter text.
text.
enter text.
enter text.
EDUC 622
Assessment Evaluation Instructions

Overview: The purpose of this assignment is to research,
evaluate, and understand valid, reliable, fair, and appropriate
assessment tools used in schools to screen, diagnose, and
measure student academic achievement.
Critically analyze the measures, addressing strengths and
weaknesses. There is a data collection template provided to ease
the process of collecting information. This template is
submitted with the assignment. Each critical analysis should
include the following:
· A Summary of the assessment instrument with clear, specific
information unique to the instrument, including the population
who could be tested with the instrument.
· An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the measure.
There must be a minimum of 2 reasons to support each one.
· Justification for why the measurement would be an appropriate
measure for different populations.
2. Use a separate data collection template for each instrument.
Save each as a Microsoft Word document labeled:
instrumentname.doc
NOTE: When submitting the evaluation, these separate
templates must be compiled, along with all other items, into 1
Word document.
3. Other resources for research are listed in the syllabus and
may be used in addition to Buros. If using the testing instrument
manual, list it in the references. Buros is directly accessible
through the JLF library database for your convenience.
Step 2 – Written Report
1. Organize and format each assessment instrument with the
headings and subheadings outlined below. Do not write the
questions or statements from the data collection template. Write
in well-formed paragraphs that flow logically from one topic to
the next.
2. Each instrument review should contain a minimum of 2 pages
of content, including the data collection template, in addition to

the cover page and reference page. Format the paper in current
APA. The data collection template will be used as a chart in the
report at the end of each instrument review.
3. The total paper (10 pages) should be presented in this order:
· Title Page (1 page)
· 8 Pages of Content
· Assessment Evaluation (AE) 1
· Completed AE 1 template
· AE 2
· AE 3
· AE 4
· Reference Page (1 page) – All assessments should be
referenced in current APA format.
4. Format each written assessment evaluation with the title,
“Analysis of Assessment Name,” using the following headings.
· Summary of Assessment
· Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
· Justification and Use of the Assessment
· Insert data collection template as a chart
Page 1 of 2
Running head: ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

Assessment Evaluation 1
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
Analysis of Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)
Summary of Assessment
DAR-2 is a comprehensive individual assessment of children’s
strengths and weaknesses
in reading and language, and informs test
administrators/examiners (teachers, specialists,
psychologists, etc.) of instructional interventions. DAR aids
professionals in distinguishing
reading strengths and deficits at each grade level by
concentrating on word recognition, oral
reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading comprehension,
spelling, word meaning and
analysis, print and phonological awareness, letters, and sounds.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
The DAR is administered to students individually and untimed.
Benchmarks for mastery
are provided for each test and their component parts. Untimed
administration aids students with

disabilities and special needs that may struggle with reading
proficiencies; the test has the ability
to separate known groups of children that may be expected to
have different levels
of reading proficiency.
The weaknesses of the assessment include the limited reliability
provided for some of the
DAR tests; studies have shown that ESL students typically
scored lower than the control group.
DAR is not a true assessment of their oral or cognitive abilities
in contexts of their own spoken
language.
Justification and Use of the Assessment
DAR meets the technical requirements for reliability and
validity. Validity is proven
across contexts of content, criterion-related, and construct;
validity supported that instrument
tested for intended purpose. It is reliable for providing
professional educators with a
comprehensive assessment of children’s strengths and

weaknesses in reading and language and
informing instructional interventions.
DATA COLLECTION FOR ASSESSMENT EVALUATIONS
Name of Instrument Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-
2)
Author(s) of Instrument Florence G. Roswell. Jeanne S. Chall,
Mary E. Curtis, Gail
Kearns.
Date of Publication 2006
Publisher PRO-ED
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
The learning areas include word recognition, oral reading
accuracy and fluency, silent reading
comprehension, spell, word analysis and meaning, print and
phonological awareness, letter
sounds.
2. Describe the age range.
Grade Levels: K-12
Designed to function as an assessment of individual reading
ability for the DARTTS testing

and teaching program. It provides a comprehensive assessment
of children’s strengths and
weaknesses in reading and language and informs instructional
interventions.
4. Describe the examiner qualifications.
Qualified examiners: Teachers, Reading Specialists, school
psychologists, diagnosticians
5. Describe the available scores.
Word Recognition, Oral Reading Accuracy and Fluency
(optional), Silent Reading
Comprehension, Spelling, Word Meaning, Print Awareness,
Phonological Awareness, Letters
and Sounds, Word Analysis.
validity, reliability, norms,
research).
Reliability coefficient ranges 0.66 to 0.90 across grade levels
and subsets; validity proven
across contexts of content, criterion-related, and construct;
validity supported that instrument
tested its intended purpose. Norm referenced standardization
samples (N = 1,395 students in
Grades K-12 for Form A, and N = 1,440 students in Grades K-
12 for Form B) with

standardization sample for Form A selected to be
demographically representative of gender,
race/ethnicity, and geographic region.
designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
Administrators are provided with an on-line Teaching Trial
Strategies (TTS) for students.
Detailed directions for test administration and scoring are
provided in the teacher's manual. In
addition, test administrators are provided with a response record
with directions for
administration, which includes a script for administering the
test as well as recording and
scoring materials. Benchmarks for mastery are provided for
each test and their component
parts. In addition, each lesson has explicit directions and a list
of needed materials. All
teaching components also contain a student record form to
record student responses.
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~ZC%20%22DAR-
2%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Roswell%2C%
20Florence%20G.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Chall%2C%20J
eanne%20S.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');

javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Curtis%2C%20
Mary%20E.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Curtis%2C%20
Mary%20E.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Kearns%2C%2
0Gail%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time.
Administration of the battery is untimed but takes
approximately 40 minutes. Although
specific instructions are provided for adequate test
administration, the time lapse necessary
between the pre- and post-assessments is not provided,
designed and easy to follow.
Examiner provided with DAR ScoringPro software system with
detailed instructions for
scoring provided in the teacher’s manual, and response record
containing a detailed script for
recording and scoring. The TTS website contains instructions
for accessing the appropriate
test for individual students. Teachers are given directions for
scoring as well as guidelines for
interpreting and using the results.

limited English proficiency
None indicated. However, the instrument has the ability to
separate known groups of children
that might be expected to have different levels of reading
proficiency.
children who have
disabilities.
None indicated; not differentiated for any specific group.
However, administered untimed to
meet the needs of students with disabilities and special needs.
children who have special
needs.
None indicated; no adaptations indicated for any specific group.
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument.
Strengths include the positive internal consistency estimates
that were obtained and the
criterion-related validity as demonstrated through the ability of
the test to separate known
groups of children that might be expected to have different
levels of reading proficiency.
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument.
(1) difficult to locate on-line resources with no specific Web
address indicated in the resources

provided; (2) technical manual unclear on whether reported
psychometrics are based on the 2nd
edition or an earlier version; (3) limited reliability provided for
some of the DAR tests; and
(4) does not contain a factor analysis to provide a better
understanding of the instrument’s
internal structure; (5) ESL typically score lower that the control
group.
15. Additional comments, information, and observations:
Not appropriate for English as a Second Language (ESL)
students; not true assessment of their
oral or cognitive abilities in contexts of their own spoken
language.
Analysis of GORT-5
GORT-5 is a reading assessment used to identify students with
reading difficulty,
diagnose reading disabilities, determine strengths and
weaknesses, and evaluate and document
students’ progress in reading. The test focuses on reading
comprehension and oral fluency.

The strengths of GORT-5 are in its validity and reliability. The
assessment has strong
prediction evidence and construct-related evidence of validity
across cultural contexts; the
assessment standardization for development of norms were
designed and implemented to assure
representation across regions of the country, gender, and race.
The assessment is highly reliable
with reliability coefficients for all age intervals exceeding 0.9.
Administration, scoring, and
interpretation of the assessment is done so by trained
professional examiners (i.e. teachers,
specialists, psychologist, diagnosticians).
While the instrument is an excellent diagnostic tool for making
classification and
instructional decisions, evaluating student progress or
intervention effectiveness, and conducting
research, it does not measure phonemic awareness or basic word
recall, the underlying constructs
of reading. GORT-5 normative group was constructed to

represent U.S. population across the
variables of geographic region, gender, race, ethnicity, parents’
education, household income,
and exceptionalities. However, GORT-5 does not have
adaptations for students with special
needs or disabilities and there is no indication how they are
represented in the norm group.
Aforementioned, professional educators, psychologists, and
diagnosticians can readily
depend on the results and interpretation of data from GORT-5 as
a valid diagnostic tool for
identifying students with reading deficiencies, diagnosing
reading disabilities, determining
strengths and weaknesses, and evaluating students’ progress in
reading.
Name of Instrument GORT-5
Author(s) of Instrument J. Lee Wiederholt and Brian R. Bryant
Publisher PRO-ED

Reading
Ages 6-23
'Identify students with reading difficulty, diagnose reading
disabilities, determine strengths
and weaknesses, and evaluate students’ progress in reading.
Qualified examiners: teachers, school psychologists, and
diagnosticians
Oral Reading Index (Fluency [Rate, Accuracy, Total], Reading
Comprehension
research).
Validity: Prediction evidence and construct-related evidence of
validity across cultural
contexts; Reliability: Reliability coefficient for all age
intervals exceeded 0.9. Norms:
Assessment Standardization: development of norms designed
and implemented to assure

standardization of administration and scoring and sample
selection to obtain representation
across regions of the country, gender, and race.
Administrator’s/Examiner’s manual includes information about
how to administer and score
the test, interpretation of scores, and technical characteristics
(norms, reliability, and validity).
A consumable examiner’s record booklet (for Form A or Form
B), the examiner records
student time and miscues and asks and records responses to
comprehension questions.
[20-30] minutes; Test has two parallel forms (A and B) each
with 16 separate stories with five
comprehension questions following each story. Typically
administered in 15-45 minutes
Examiner manual includes information on scoring and
interpretation of test score (Rate score
derived from the amount of time in seconds taken by a student
to read a story aloud; accuracy

score derived from number of words student pronounces
correctly when reading the passage.
fluency score determined by combining student’s Rate and
Accuracy scores; comprehension
score determined by number of questions about the stories that
the student answers correctly).
The Oral Reading Index (ORI) is a composite score formed by
combining students’ Fluency
and Comprehension scaled scores.
None indicated; test designed to determine students with
reading disabilities and evaluate
student progress.
children who have
disabilities.
Normative group was matched to the U.S. population across the
variables of geographic
region, gender, race, ethnicity, parents’ education, household
income, and exceptionalities.
Test designed to determine students with reading disabilities
and to evaluate student progress.

needs.
None indicated.
The instrument is an excellent diagnostic tool for making
classification and instructional
decisions, evaluating student progress or intervention
effectiveness, and conducting research to
determine the range of options using scaled scores as well as
miscue analyses of oral reading.
Does not measure any underlying constructs of reading (e.g.,
phonemic awareness, basic word
recall).
Administrators and users should not conduct the secondary
analysis scoring (i.e., prosody
ratings and miscue analyses) if they have not received sufficient
training.
Analysis of WIAT-III

WIAT-III is an achievement assessment for primary and
secondary students ages 4-0 through 19-
11 (Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade). The individually
administered comprehensive was
designed to measure the achievement levels of children in the
areas of listening, speaking,
reading, writing and mathematics; it also advises the adult
norms for ages 20 through 50. The
constructs of WIAT-III identify academic strengths and
weaknesses, informs decision making
pertaining to eligibility of services, and devises
recommendations for instruction and
intervention.
Validity studies are consistent with professional practice and
provide evidence for its
interpretations and uses. The developed norms norm samples
were constructed to be nationally
representative of the U.S. population for each grade and age
level, and total with students added
from special groups (e.g., specific learning disabilities, speech
or language impairment,

intellectual disability, and developmental delay). Correlation
studies with previous editions and
similar achievement tests (i.e. WPPSI-III, WISC-IV, WAIS-IV,
WNV, and DAS-I) provide
strong convergent evidence for interpretation of the subtests and
composites; the assessment is
reliable for assessing the aforementioned objectives.
Although the WIAT-III is well constructed assessment for
measuring the achievement of
children in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and
mathematics, has representative norms, and
provides strong evidence of reliability and validity, it does not
provide reliability and validity
evidence for the suggested use of the instrument to design
instructional objectives and plan
interventions.
The WIAT-III, being administered by experienced examiners
and scored by experienced
and professional educators and diagnosticians, is able to provide
a comprehensive and reliable

assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses in the
aforementioned areas and inform
instructional interventions for diverse student populations (e.g.
different age group and cognitive
levels, specific learning disabilities, speech or language
impairment, intellectual disability, and
developmental delays, etc.).
Name of Instrument WIAT-III.
Author(s) of Instrument Pearson
Publisher Pearson
Achievement: listening, speaking, reading, writing and
mathematics
Ages 4-0 to 19-11: Pre-K to 2nd Grade
To measure the achievement of students' in prekindergarten
through Grade 12 in the areas of
listening, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics.

Level B: Experienced examiner/teacher
The scores available include: Listening Comprehension, Early
Reading Skills, Reading
Comprehension, Alphabet Writing Fluency, Sentence
Composition, Word Reading, Essay
Composition, Pseudoword Decoding, Oral Reading and Oral
Expression, Fluency, Spelling,
Math Problem Solving, Numerical Operations, Math Fluency
(Addition, Subtraction,
Multiplication), 8 composite scores (Oral Language, Total
Reading, Basic Reading, Reading
Comprehension and Fluency, Written Expression, Mathematics,
Math Fluency, Total
Achievement).
research).
Three primary validity studies report content evidence,

convergent evidence, and special group
studies; the studies are consistent with professional practice and
provide validity evidence for
its interpretations and uses. The reliability coefficients for all
subsets except Alphabet Writing
Fluency (AWF) are 0.8 and higher for the Fall sample and
slightly lower for the Spring
sample; AWF had Fall sample of 0.69. The composite
reliability is greater than 0.9 and
provides reliability evidence. Norms were developed with 2,775
students in Grades PK-12
with separate norms reported for Fall (N = 1,400) and Spring (N
= 1,375); norm samples
constructed to be nationally representative of the U.S.
population for each grade and age level,
and total with students added from special groups (e.g., specific
learning disabilities, speech or
language impairment, intellectual disability, and developmental
delay).
Q-global kit including examiner's manual, technical manual CD,
stimulus book,

scoring workbook, oral reading fluency book, word card, pseudo
word card, audio CD’
materials provide an experienced examiner with a solid basis for
administering this
assessment.
Administration time varies depending on the grade level of the
student and the number of
subtests administered.; average administration time ranges from
1 minute to 17 minutes.
Average scoring time: about 40 minutes.
Standardized scoring procedures are provided; scoring can be
completed manually or with the
Scoring Assistant CD. Several scores are available for each
subtest: standard scores, percentile
ranks, grade and age equivalents, normal curve equivalents, and
stanines, and growth scale
values.
None indicated.
children who have

disabilities.
Instrument appropriate for use with children who have
disabilities.
needs.
Students within special groups (e.g., specific learning
disabilities, speech or language
impairment, intellectual disability, and developmental delay)
added to representative norm.
Assessment does provide a comprehensive assessment of
children's strengths and weaknesses
in reading and language and informs instructional interventions
for a wide range of students.
The assessment instructions are clearly laid out in the
examiner’s manual, it is easy to
administer, and the clearly written examiner’s manual provides
the examiner with easy to use
tables for scoring,

Does not provide reliability and validity evidence for the
suggested use of the instrument to
design instructional objectives and plan interventions.
Indication of
Analysis of Test of Early Reading Ability—Fourth Edition
(TERA-IV)
TERA-4 is still under review. The previous TERA assessment
(TERA-3) ascertains that
the purpose of the assessment is to identify children who
demonstrate reading development
significantly below their peers that may require interventions,
to identify children’s individual
strengths and weaknesses, to provide documentation of
children’s progress as a result of the
implemented intervention program, to serve as a measure of
research for studying literacy
development in young children, and to be used in conjunction
with other assessment techniques.

Strengths of TERA-4 lie in its ease of administration, its use of
tables, and scoring. It is
able to assess the aforementioned objectives, identify children’s
strengths and weaknesses, and
be used as a measure of research. TERA is an assessment quick
tool with individual nonclinical
administration, is able to supplement other formal and informal
assessments for reading
development. and can screen for specific areas of strength and
weaknesses in individual children.
Weaknesses may lie in the usage of non-clinical examiners to
administer and score the
assessment. Experienced examiners with well-developed skills
in administering, scoring, and
interpretation can be useful in providing data and
interpretations to educators to provide students
displaying weaknesses with early interventions. The instrument
assesses conventions
(understanding the arbitrary conventions of reading and writing
in English) and may be
inappropriate for students with limited English proficiency (i.e.

ESL students).
TERA has been in development since 1981, and revisions have
been in accordance with
reviewers’ recommendations to increase the assessments
validity and reliability. The authors,
taking reviewers recommendations into account, collected new
normative data, addressed
appropriate demographic representation and conducted
extensive reliability and validity studies,
and added them as per recommendations. The instrument is a
reliable and valid source for
assessing individual children’s mastery of early reading skills
and is useful in identifying the
scope and depth of reading development deficiencies.
DATA COLLECTION FOR ASSESSMENT EVALUATIONS
Name of Instrument Test of Early Reading Ability--Fourth
Edition (TERA-4)
Author(s) of Instrument D. Kim Reid, Wayne P. Hresko, Donald
D. Hammill
Publisher Pro-Ed

Reading
Ages 3-6 to 8-6.
Earlier versions were designed to assess children’s mastery of
early developing reading skills,
help identify children who have significant problems in reading
development, and to
determine the degree of their problems.
Nonclinical staff can administer. However, authors strongly
recommend that the examiner
have formal training in assessment with a basic understanding
of testing statistics and general
procedures regarding test administration, scoring, and
interpretation.
Alphabet, Conventions, Meaning
research).

Reviews for TERA-4 are pending. The previous edition (TERA-
3): Norm sample well
matched to the general school-age population (gender, race,
ethnicity, SES, disability, and
urban/rural) and representative of regions across the United
States. Reliability coefficient
ranged from 0.8 to 0.91 or higher across all subtests and age
groups. Reliability, validity, and
norm-referenced measures instill confidence that the test scores
can be considered highly
reliable and valid.
The TERA-4 offers a quick tool, with easy one-to-one
nonclinical administration, to
supplement other formal and informal assessments of
development reading and can screen for
specific areas of strength and weaknesses in individual children.
TERA provides
administrators with examiners’ manuals, record booklets
(profile sheet with graphic

comparison across the three subtests, a graph to compare the
Reading Quotient with other
comparable measures that might have been administered to the
child). The examiner record
booklet has space for interpretation, comments, and diagnostic
implications; the examiner can
note the testing conditions and the degree of validity under the
recorded conditions.
Individual administration; 30-45 minutes
The TERA-4 offers a quick tool, with easy one-to-one
nonclinical administration and on-line
scoring available upon completion of assessment.
None indicated; test norm referenced across regions of the
United States (i.e. gender, race,
ethnicity, SES, disability, and urban/rural). The instrument
assesses conventions
(understanding the arbitrary conventions of reading and writing
in English) and may be
inappropriate for students with limited English proficiency (i.e.
ESL students).

children who have
disabilities.
None indicated;
needs.
None indicated
Strengths of TERA-4 lie in its ease of administration, its use of
tables, and scoring. It is able
to assess the aforementioned objectives, identify children’s
strengths and weaknesses, and be
used as a measure of research. TERA is an assessment quick
tool
Weaknesses may lie in the usage of non-clinical examiners to
administer and score the
assessment.
Instrument is under review. Used review of TERA-3 to analyze
the TERA-4 assessment.

References
Pearson. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test--Third
Edition. Retrieved from
https://search-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=
test.3194&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2018). Test of
Early Reading Ability--Fourth
Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
live&scope=site
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1981). Test of
Early Reading Ability, Third
Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
live&scope=site

Roswell, F. G., Chall, J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns, G. (2006).
Diagnostic Assessments of
Reading™, Second Edition. Retrieved from https://search-
ebscohost-
live&scope=site
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading
Tests–Fifth Edition. Retrieved
from https://search-ebscohost-
live&scope=site
test.3194&site=ehost-live&scope=site

from%20https:/search-ebscohost-

EDUC 622Data Collection Template for Assessment EvaluationsCol.docx

EDUC 622Data Collection Template for Assessment EvaluationsCol.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to EDUC 622Data Collection Template for Assessment EvaluationsCol.docx

Similar to EDUC 622Data Collection Template for Assessment EvaluationsCol.docx (20)

More from gidmanmary

More from gidmanmary (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

EDUC 622Data Collection Template for Assessment EvaluationsCol.docx