Francis X. Short chapter 4 Measurement, Assessment, and Program Evaluation

Common assessment strategies Standardized approaches Alternative approaches

Standardized Approaches Usually “store bought” tests Limited selection of test items Specific directions for administration provided Usually known validity and reliability Generally strong psychometrically but weak authentically Standards provided to make judgments about student test performance

Standards Norm referenced Criterion referenced

Norm-Referenced Standards Comparisons are made to others from a specifically defined group (age, sex, disability, etc.). “Norms” are usually developed by testing large numbers, and results are tabulated. Percentiles, T scores, z scores are used. “Above average” and “below average” are the types of judgments made. IQ tests, older PE tests are examples.

Criterion-Referenced Standards Comparisons are made to predetermined “mastery” scores (minimally acceptable scores for a particular purpose). Criteria are determined by expert opinion, research data, logic, experience, and so on. “Competent” and “noncompetent” are the types of judgments made. FITNESSGRAM is an example.

Alternative Approaches Links assessment to instruction Has day-to-day applicability Often teacher constructed Strong authentically, but weak psychometrically (premium on subjective evaluation) Rubrics, task analyses, and portfolios are examples

Rubrics A type of rating scale in which a student’s performance is matched to one of multiple levels of a skill via a set of criteria Student knows where he or she stands and what needs to be done for improvement Works well with IEPs: if PLP = 2, then STOs = 3 or 4 (or certain aspects of 3 or 4)

Task Analysis Different types exist, but all involve breaking skills down into smaller, perhaps sequentially ordered, steps or “focal points.” When used as an assessment instrument, “missing” components are identified, and a strategy for teaching is revealed. It can be expanded for use in ecological assessment (including “functional” and “top-down” approaches).

Portfolios A collection of representative student work Entries: videos, test results (standardized and alternative), peer evaluations, journals, logs, etc. Strength: multiple assessments on multiple occasions

Standardized vs. Alternative Generally use both. Give preference to standardized for “unique need” question. –IDEA requires valid, reliable, objective, and nondiscriminatory testing. Give preference to alternative when devising instructional strategies. –Assessment is curriculum-embedded.

Unique Need Criteria might include –< 15th percentile –> than 1 SD below the mean (T < 40) –2-year developmental delay or more –Fails to meet criterion-referenced standards –Fails to meet 70% of the competencies in the PE curriculum Trial placement recommended for corroboration

What to Assess in APE? Remember IDEA definition of PE –Physical and motor fitness. –Fundamental motor skills and patterns. –Skills in aquatics, dance, and individual and group games and sports (including intramural and lifetime sports). Minimally test physical fitness (or physical activity) and motor skill (including reflexes, rudimentary, fundamental, and specialized skills, as appropriate). Affective skills may also be assessed in authentic settings.

Milani–Comparetti Purpose: to assess motor development, including reflexes and reactions, in young children (birth–2 years) and children with developmental disabilities Description: 27 total test items: 9 test head control, body control, and “active movements;” 5 test for primitive reflexes; 13 test for postural reactions Scoring: age norms for each of the tests are provided Comment: often administered by therapists

Peabody DMS-2 Purpose: to assess the fine and gross motor development of children (birth–5 years). Description: 249 test items (mostly developmental milestones) are arranged across six categories and age levels. Scoring: gross motor quotient, fine motor quotient, and total motor quotient can be calculated. Comment: normative data are available.

TGMD-2 Purpose: to test fundamental movement patterns in preschool and early elementary children with emphasis on “process” rather than “product” of performance. Description: 12 patterns are tested within locomotor and object control subtests. Scoring: based on “focal points” listed for each of the patterns. Comment: criterion-based scores can be compared to norm-referenced standards.

Sports Skills Program Guides Purpose: to assist in the assessment and instruction of sport skills for people with disabilities (aged 8 and beyond). Description: task-analyzed assessments are available for 26 sports. Scoring: “focal points” are checked off as athletes demonstrate the correct techniques. Comment: used by Special Olympics; strong “authentically” but no validity or reliability reported.

Brockport Physical Fitness Test Purpose: to assess the health-related fitness of youngsters (aged 10–17) with certain disabilities. Description: typically 4 to 6 test items are selected from 27 possibilities based on a “personalized” approach. Scoring: test scores are compared to criterion- referenced standards based on gender, age, and in some cases disability. Comment: closely related to FITNESSGRAM and supported by computer software (Fitness Challenge).

ACTIVITYGRAM Purpose: to record, analyze, and save student physical activity data and produce reports based on the data. Description: computer program prompts students to recall previous day’s physical activity in 30- minute time blocks. Scoring: determines total number of minutes of at least moderate level of activity for previous 3 days. Comment: has good utility for students with disabilities (but might need help recalling or entering data).

Program Evaluation Increasingly important to demonstrate that instructional program is good, not merely claim it is good. Requires that program goals be clearly articulated. Program goal should include a criterion (e.g., 90% of all students will engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate-level physical activity at least 4 days per week). Student data are aggregated to evaluate the program goal.