u07d1 Psychoeducational Test Issues
Based on your reading of Chapter 12 in the Kaplan and Saccuzzo text, discuss the issues involved in the
psychoeducational assessment of individuals within the school setting, and then:
Discuss how standardization and normative procedures employed in psychoeducational assessment
might or might not contribute to bias in working with this population.
Determine, as a psychologist, how you would resolve or deal with these issues. How would you
minimize the potential for bias in individual cases?
Incorporate information from the article you read into your post.
Discuss how the standards presented in Chapters 9, 10, and 13 of the Standards text pertain to
psychoeducational assessment.
diverse backgrounds.
Discuss the specific concerns that must be addressed when testing individuals with disabilities.
Response Guidelines
Compare and contrast your view of the standardization and normative procedures to that of another learner. Make
suggestions to strengthen their plan for resolving these issues.
Two types of testing are currently administered in a school setting: achievement and aptitude
tests. Achievement tests attempt to assess what a person has learned following a standard course
of instruction. Aptitude tests evaluate a wide range of experiences and a students potential for
learning in specific areas such as math, science or music. Validity in achievement tests relies on
content-related evidence while aptitude tests rely upon criterion-related evidence. Intelligence
testing measures general intelligence and like aptitude tests attempts to measure future
performance but in a general sense rather than specific areas of learning (Kaplan, R. M., &
Saccuzzo, D. P., 2009).
Mental abilities tests like the Kuhlmann-Anderson Test (KAT) for K-12 grades has received
favorable reviews for its standardization and psychometric properties in which its normative data
has been improved and broadened to include more than 10,000 subjects. It appears useful for
handicapped children, but it is unknown whether it is useful for non-English speaking children.
The Henman-Nelson Test (H-NT) is an ability test that measures intelligence in all grades by a
single score. The normative procedure is different than the KAT by using two norms, grade and
age (Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P., 2009). However, although highly used and versatile, the
normative and standardized procedures appear to fall short as a screening instrument for gifted,
learning disabled and culturally diverse students. Furthermore, the manual presents no
normative data for these populations.
The Cognitive Abilities Test (COGAT) has a higher validity for culturally diverse and
economically disadvantaged populations but also appears to have a history of normative
difficulties by relying on replacement norm groups that were not accurate representations. The
college entrance exam, SAT reasoning, Cooperative School and College Ability (SCAT) and Law
School Admission (LSAT) tests have also been criticized for possible selection bias in its
standardization procedures (Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P., 2009).
As a school psychologist, minimizing the potential for bias in testing requires an understanding
of the standardized and normative procedures used by the test developers. The National
Association of School Psychologists (NASP) training for school psychologists articulates a clear
training philosophy of data-based accountability and student diversity in development and
learning (National Association of School Psychologists, 2000). This requires that school
psychologists to demonstrate sensitivity and skills to work with individuals from culturally
diverse backgrounds and implement strategies based on individual characteristics, strengths and
needs. It is the responsibility of school psychologists to conduct investigations and program
evaluations whenever necessary for the improvement of services to the student population.
Under this program, school psychologists review and evaluate validity research and
psychometric properties when selecting the best assessment tools in data-based decision making
(National Association of School Psychologists, 2000).
Most school psychologists generally have positive attitudes towards intelligence, ability and
aptitude tests. However, test-retest and criterion-related evidence for validity with other
standardized tests on an individual basis can help to resolve some of the controversy surrounding
the usage of some tests among diverse ethnic, disabled and economically disadvantaged
individuals.
The Standards text addresses areas of linguistic diversity and disability among individuals when
administering tests (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999). It indicates that test norms based on native
speakers of English either should not be used with individuals whose first language is not
English or the test should be interpreted based on the individuals current level of English
proficiency. If a test is known to be inadequately translated, assessment of individuals level of
English proficiency should be conducted by bilingual examiners. When a bilingual examiner is
not available, an interpreter can administer the test with translation.
A standardized test that has been designed for use among the general population may not be
appropriate for those with physical disabilities (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999). The Standards
text suggests alterations in the following areas: test medium, timing, settings and content.
Careful attention must be exercised to not alter the test constructs and psychometric qualities of
the test when making allowances for disabled individuals.
In summary, individually administered tests are used by school psychologists to facilitate
learning and development of students who may have special educational needs. Individually
administered tests can be used for screening, diagnostic classification, intervention planning and
program evaluation to determine whether a student meets eligibility requirements for special
education and what special services need to be provided (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999).
References
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and
issues (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Standards for training and field placement
programs in school psychology; Standards for the credentialing of school
psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from
http://www.nasponline.org/standards/FinalStandards.pdf
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National
Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological
testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
