OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per dqy per item RETURNING LIBRARY MTERIALS: Place in book return to ranove charge from circulation records THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION 'oE THE PREKINDERGARTEN READINESS SCREENING DEVICE By Richard Norman Claus A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Psychology 1981 6) Copyright by RICHARD NORMAN CLAUS 1981 l5 A'n I! v V“ :u On A V v. Q n\U 5 I.‘ AV\\ .4‘ ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE PREKINDERGARTEN READINESS SCREENING DEVICE By Richard Norman Claus The Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) is an individually administered 27 item applied performance checklist. Scores from PRSD have been used to determine the eligibility for participation in a Title I Prekinder- garten program. The purposes of this research were: (a) to estimate the rater reliability, (b) to explore age progres- sion of items as one aspect of construct validity, and (c) to estimate predictive validity of the PRSD. Subjects for the rater reliability study were the 11 teachers and 8 aides of Saginaw Public School's Prekinder- garten program. This study consisted of raters scoring two videotaped testing sessions. Intra—class correlation obtained for an individual was .789 and for the average of all raters was .973. Subjects for the construct validity study were the 1,415 potential prekindergarteners that resided in the economically depressed area of Saginaw, Michigan designated as the Title I attendance areas. These subjects were screened for either the school year of 1978-79, 1979-80, or 1980-81. The screening data were used to study the age pro- gression of each item by means of a test for trend in order chi-square contingency tables. The null hypothesis of no age progression by age interval in the percent passing each item was not accepted for 25 of 27 items (alpha < .05). On the basis of Cramer's contingency coefficients related to the trend of the 25 items showing significant results (an average coefficient of .136) and a Pearson correlation coefficient between age and total PRSD score (r = .161), percentile norms were calculated for the entire group rather than for each age group. The data eet also yielded reliabilities of .820 and .860 for the Kuder-Richardson 20 and Spearman Brown split- half formulas respectively. Subjects for the predictive validity study were the 396 potential prekindergarteners screened with the PRSD during the 1978-79 school year. ‘These subjects were subsequently, during the same school year, pre- and post-tested with the Prekindergarten Saginaw Objective Referenced Test (PSORT) and tested with the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) in April of the 1979-80 school year. The Pearson correlation coeffi- cients between the PRSD and each achievement instrument follow: pre-test PSORT, r = .487; post-test PSORT, r = .383; and MAT, r = .h8h. Fisher's r to Z transformation of the correlations showed all three relationships to be signifi- cantly different than zero (alpha < .05). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have helped me complete this research. I would like to acknowledge their names with deep apprecia- tion and beg the indulgence of those I may overlook but equally thank. First to Dr. Robert L. Ebel, my advisor and committee chairman. for his personal interest, guidance and encourage- ment throughout the doctorate program and this research. I would also like to thank the other members of my disserta- tion committee Dr. Andrew C. Porter, Dr. Samuel A. Moore II, and Dr. Philip M. Marcus for their valuable insights and contributions to this study and their guidance and inspira- tion during the course of the author's graduate career. The author is also indebted to Mrs. Reva Ruby and her staff for their participation in the data collection pro- cedures of the Title I Prekindergarten program. Their interest and cooperation in always trying to provide a better prekindergarten program made this study possible. My sincere thanks to my fellow colleagues at the Saginaw Public Schools, Mr. Barry Quimper, Mr. Michael Manley, Mr. David Lutenski, and Mr. Hsing Chen for their friendship, inspiration, support, and editorial comments. iii I am especially grateful to Mr. Hsing Chen for aiding me in the data processing aspects of the study. My manuscript was typed by Miss Terry Fisher, who labored many hours to type the many drafts. I owe her a special debt of gratitude. I am appreciative to my mother and father. Mrs. Dorothy Claus and Dr. Norman Claus for their belief in the value of education. continuous encouragement. and financial support. To them goes a very personal and special thanks that words cannot express adequately. I am thankful to my wife Sachiko. who has been a continuous source of motivation and inspiration for me to complete my doctoral program. Her constant faith in me, her personal sacrifice, and her lovingg'unfaltering support made everything possible. iv fi'.1 v...'.. p— J. .0- VAVI‘ ‘Il‘.. u- I. b ‘u ' 5‘. ‘w a N ~4 ) n) (I) A.) o II tr. :1- (I) I (I) 1 3 k D (I) L! d I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inadequacies of Available Tests . . . . . . . . . . Effectiveness of Preschool Programs . . . . . . . . Need for Better Readiness Instruments . . . . . . . \) kn-l-TN N PURPOSE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Applied Performance Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Prekindergarten Aged Children . . . . . . . . . . Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) . 10 School Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 TEST EVALUATION QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 14 REVIEW OF LITERATURE - EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION . 15 History of Early Childhood Education Prior to 1920 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 Historical Review of Objectives of Early Child- hood Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Factors Related to the Renewed Interest in the 1960's of Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . 23 Generalizations and Differences of Present-Day Early Childhood Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 REVIEW OF LITERATURE - CHECKLIST CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Assumption Behind the Construction of Checklists . 30 Source of Common Errors Associated with Check- lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Means to Overcome T ese Errors . . . . . . . . . . 33 SUMMARY . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 SETTING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 39 INST RUMENT AT ION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I an Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) . 44 Prekindergarten Saginaw Objective Referenced Test (PSORT ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I “6 Metropolitan Achi vement Tests (MAT) . . . . . . . 47 RELIABILITY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1+9 Test Evaluation Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 subjeCts I I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 Procedures I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 AnalySis I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 53 Test Evaluation Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 subjects I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 55 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ArlalySi-s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 56 PREDICTIVE VALIDITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Test Evaluation Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 subjects I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 61 Procedures I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 61 AnalySiS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 63 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . 66 RELIABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 PREDICTIVE VALIDITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . 111 SUWARY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 112 Reliability Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Construct Validity Study Results . . . . . . . . . 117 Predictive Validity Study Results . . . . . . . . . 118 DISCUSSION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 119 Reliability I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 120 Construct Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Predictive Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 CONCLUSION I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 126 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . 127 APPENDIX A: Comparison of Actual Administration Time and Grade Leve1(S)/Age(s) for Six- teen Readiness Instruments Presented in ' e e e e . 128 APPENDIX B: 'Inquiry Letter to Dr. Ralph Scott About the Composition of the Norming Sample of the Iowa Test of Preschool Develop- ment I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 130 Reply Letter by Dr. Ralph Scott Stating Reasons for the Composition of the Norm- ing Sample of the Iowa Test Of Preschool Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 APPENDIX C: Administration Manual for the Prekinder- garten Readiness ScreeningiDevice (PRSD7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13“ APPENDIX D: Official Membership for September 26, 1980 Of the School District of the City Of saginaw I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5“ APPENDIX E: Title I Prekindergarten Activity Obser- vation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 APPENDIX E: Summary by Objective of 1978-79 Title I Prekindergarten Mastery Criteria . . . . 16“ vii APPENDIX G: APPENDIX H: APPENDIX I: APPENDIX J: APPENDIX K: APPENDIX L: TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) 1978-79 Title I Prekindergarten Product Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normed Data References for Behaviors Included on the Prekindergarten Readi- ness Screening Device . . . . . . . . . Administration Manual for the Prekinder- arten Sa inaw Objective Referenced TeStS PSORT) o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Letter from Harry E. Bredeck of Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) grant- ing ApprOVal for Using Human Subjects for the Proposal Entitled, "The Develop— ment and Evaluation of Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device . . . . . . Letter from Barry E. Quimper, Director of Evaluation, Testing and Research of the School District of the City Of Saginaw Relating to His Review of the Research Proposal Concerning Standards to Protect Human Subjects . . . . . . . Age and Sex of Children Screened Using the Prekindergarten Regginess Screening Device (PRSDI for Three Consecutive Years--September/October 1978. 1979, arid 1980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Racial Ethnic Background of Children Screened Using the Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) for Three Consecutive Years--September/ October of 1978. 1979. and 1980 . . . . Demographic Data from the 1970 Census Showing Characteristics of Families and Homes in the Title I Attendance Area of the School District of the City of Saginaw, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 165 167 173 194 195 197 198 199 a “6 h- up TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page APPENDIX M: Spearman-Brown Split Half Formula for Estimating Total Test Reliability from Parts of Unequal Length . . . . . . . . 200 APPENDIX N: Number and Percent of An Age Group . Passing Each PRSD Test Item . . . . . . 201 I I I 203 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Table 3.1 4.1 4.2 “03 w. 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 LIST OF TABLES Item Numbers and Specific Behaviors Requested of Pupils on the Prekindergarten Readiness WW(PRSD)........... Variances Used to Estimate Intra—Class Reliability of PRSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent Agreement of Videotape Raters to Original Rater (N= 19). . . . . . . . . . . Chi-Square Table for the Test of Linear Trend and Cramer's Contingency Coefficients for Each PRSD Test Item (N = 1,404) . . . . . . . Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations for Age and PRSD Total Score, and the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Between These variables I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Raw Score to Percentile Conversion Table for PRSD (N = I'll'lS) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Kuder-Richardson 20 Reliability for the PRSD and Associated Descriptive Statistics Of Sample Size, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Odd and Even Halves of the PRSD, and Pearson Product Moment Correlations Uncorrected for Length and Corrected for Length by Means of the Spearman Brown Prophecy Formula . . . Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Results of PRSD and Pre-Test PSORT Administrations, and Their Pearson Product Moment Correlation with 95% Confidence Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Results of PRSD and Post-Test PSORT Administrations, and Their Pearson Product Moment Correlation with 95% Confidence Inter— val I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I Page 45 68 71 77 88 89 9O 91 96 98 Table 4.10 4.11 4.12 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Sample Size, Means. and Standard Deviations of the Results of PRSD and PSORT Administra— tions, and Their Pearson Product Moment Correlation and Partial Correlation Coeffi- Cients I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sample Sizes. Means. and Standard Deviations of the Results of PRSD and MAT Administra- tions, and Their Pearson Product Moment Cor- relations with 95% Confidence Intervals for Pupil Classifications of all Prekinder- garteners and its Two Components of Title I and Non-Title I or Title I Dropouts . . . . . Synopsis of Test Evaluation Issues in Ques- tion or Hypothesis Form Along with Their Associated Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Actual Administration Time and Grade Level(s)/Age(s) for Sixteen Readiness Instruments Presented in The Eighth Mental Measurement Yearbook . . . . . . . . . . . . Saginaw Day School Elementary Official Member- Ship - september 26' 1980 o o o o o o o o o 0 City of Saginaw School District Racial and Ethnic Count I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Saginaw Day School Official Membership - september 26. 1980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary by Objective of 1978-79 Title I Pre- kindergarten Mastery Criteria . . . . . . . . Normed Data ReferenCes for Behaviors Included on the Prekindergarten Readiness Screening DeViCe I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Age and Sex of Children Screened Using the Prekinder arten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) for Three Consecutive Years--September/ October 1978, 1979. and 1980 . . . . . . . . xi Page 100 102 108 128 154 155 156 164 167 197 Table K.1 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Racial Ethnic Background of Children Screened Using the Pregindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) for Three Consecutive Years-- September/October of 1978. 1979. and 1980 . . Demographic Data from the 1970 Census Showing Characteristics of Families and Homes in the Title I Attendance Area of the School District of the City of Saginaw. Michigan . . . . . . Number and Percent of an Age Group Passing Each PRSD Test Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 198 199 201 than}! ('rw-a con“ u U “.2 1.1 Figure 3.1 4.1 4.2 M.1 Chi-Square Contingency Table Layout Used for LIST OF FIGURES Each Item of the PRSD . Observed Frequencies for the Contingency Table of Item Two of the PRSD Expected Frequencies for the Contingency Table of Item Two of the PRSD Spearman-Brown Split Half Formula for Esti- mating Total Test Reliability from Parts of Unequal Length xiii Page 57 79 80 200 CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM This study deals with the early identification of children who may have problems in school. A survey of psychological and educational literature of the recent past (Lesiak. 1978) indicates a growing concern with this problem. A great deal of activity has taken place, spe- cifically in the past decade and a half, in the construc- tion of standardized school readiness instruments. This interest in early detection devices is clearly evident in the upward trend in the number of screening measures reviewed in the Mental Measurement Yearbook (Buros, 1965, 1972. 1978). The sixth edition (1965) of the Mental Eggsurement Yearbook (MMY) mentioned eight readiness tests, compared with 29 in the seventh edition (1972) and 16 in the eighth edition (1978). While the number of new instru- ments appearing in the latest MMY shows a decline (16 as Opposed to 29), considerable interest still seems evident and, as the next section relates, adequate school readiness screening devices are needed. 131312;) This section reviews issues pertaining to the need for readiness and screening instruments. The topics spe- cifically covered are the following: inadequacies of available tests. effectiveness of preschool programs. and the need for better prekindergarten readiness instruments. Inadequacies of Available Tests The most disheartening observation to a psychometri- cally inclined reviewer of the MentalgMeasurement Yearbook critiques of readiness and screening measures is the scarcity of data set forth as essential for test develop- ment by the American Psychological Association. Of the 29 readiness tests reviewed in 1972. 11 (37.9%) lacked at least one of the following: norms. description of stan- dardization sample, data on test reliability. or data on test validity. An additional five tests gave only partial information on an essential dimension (Maitland, Nadeau, and Nadeau. 1974; Buros, 1972). Of the 16 tests reviewed in 1978. 9 (56.2%) lacked data on at least one of the essential dimensions listed above. When screening and evaluating the readiness of a special population is a major concern. then the number of satisfactory instruments are few or nonexistent. This is just the problem with the screening and evaluating of disadvantaged children for enrollment in Title I Prekindergarten and Head Start Programs throughout this country. Assessment processes for these federally funded programs have been complicated by the absence of suitable and adequate measurement instruments (Grotberg. 1969; Walker. 1972). Even though a select number of adequate instruments may exist. the time available for individually screening each child is usually limited. Of the 16 tests reviewed in the Eighth Edition of the Mental Measurement Yearbook. the median time required for administration was 32.5 minutes (Buros. 1978) with only three instruments taking less than 15 minutes (see Appendix A for times on all instruments). The identification process appears to be a problem with some prekindergarten staffs because they see teaching as their primary responsibility and the screen- ing process as secondary. A shorter reliable and valid screening instrument would help alleviate this problem. In the Saginaw Public Schools Title I program. a need has existed for many years for both screening and outcome instruments normed on a population that included representatives of non-white segments of the population. Having a large non-white segment in the Saginaw Title I population. it was both scientifically sound and politi- cally astute to request such norming samples of test pub- lishers. However. the search for both sound preschool instruments and tests normed on the appropriate population was unproductive. Approximately four years ago a promising outcome measure was found (namely the Iowa Test of Preschool Devel- opment). but unfortunately it was normed on a rural all white population. The author of the test explained that the all white sample provided a goal for non-whites. (See Appendix B for copies of correspondence on this mat- ter.) Norms of a meaningful referent group are essential to describing the meaning of scores to parents. If the skills measured are developmental in nature as most pre- kindergarten screening tests claim. then norms can also provide further proof of age differentiation and construct validity (Anastasi, 1970, p. 474). Whitely and Davis (1974, pp. 163-178) explain that. under classical models of test development, the score obtained by a person is not interpretable without referring to both some norm group and the particular test forms used. Norms seem essential to the further development of any measurement instrument and to the practical task of explaining scores to parents. Effectiveness of Preschool Programs Data available from the preschool efforts of the 1960's and early 1970's indicate that lasting posi- tive effects and academic gains are possible through preschool programs aimed at disadvantaged youngsters. The study of lasting effects of preschool by Lazar and Darlington (1979) found the following effects of pre- school programs: fewer children assigned to special edu- cation classes regardless of their initial abilities or early home background: fewer children retained in grade (again regardless of initial abilities or home background); significantly increased children's scores on fourth grade (grade level at which the most data were available) mathe- matics achievement tests with a suggestive trend toward increased scores on fourth grade reading tests: higher I.Q. scores than control children up to age 12: and increased likelihood to give achievement-related reasons for being proud of themselves. Need for Better Readiness Instruments A number of factors. taken together. indicate that more valid and reliable preschool readiness instruments will be demanded in the 1980's. Some of these factors are declining student enrollment. excess numbers of teachers in the work force, and proven preschool programs. Declin- ing student enrollments seem likely to continue. resulting in an over supply of teachers seeking employment. Faced with this surplus teacher work force educators and planners have attempted to expand the scope of education at both ends of the learning continuum. Much talk centers upon the potential preschool aged pupils and adult continuing educa- tion stduents as populations where new programs need to be I II“: Ulbot' 7:v-§,. on ,c are) , 'l 1": developed or existing programs need to be expanded. How- ever. should the economic conditions of the 1980's con- tinue. this factor will make program expansion more likely in an area where there has been a proven need. A number of prekindergarten programs do appear to satisfy a need. However. it would seem that program expansion would be limited to those programs that have established a need based upon valid and reliable screening instruments. On the other hand. if resources for education do con- tinue to be reduced. then the size of existing preschool programs will be cut. Thus better screening of possible preschool aged participants to find those most lacking school readiness skills would still be a necessity. Yet normed. valid, and reliable screening devices for disad- vantaged minority preschool aged population are not pres- ently available. \I .vvfi".fi~' p 'r' . 1... Nil. —-—!— develo; n ‘re‘r:‘w boat: 0‘ J“ atle to ?“'ther QM High pr ‘9': a‘: "" «D a; PURPOSE The specific purpose of this study is to further develop and evaluate a teacher administered measurement instrument for screening prekindergarten pupils. The instrument would be used to identify children. who because of developmental and/or experiential problems may be less able to meet the typical expectations of their peers. Further. this instrument should satisfy concerns of Title I prekindergarten staff. A screening instrument used for such programs ideally should have the following charac- teristics: 0 An administration length of no more than 12 minutes. 0 Easily understood directions so that teachers and paraprofessionals could administer the test after a 90 minute training session. 0 Standardized administration and scor- ing procedures to ensure uniform results. 0 A review of pupil performance in an applied setting.1 1In other words, program personnel want to observe requested pupil behaviors in a school setting (applied set- ting). Other possible screening measures as the Vineland Social Maturity Scale call for a parental report of recalled child performance in a home setting. Thus the desire of our Title I Prekindergarten supervisor and staff is to obtain a screening measure that focuses on actual child performance in a non-home situation. Both the Title I personnel and this researcher believe this type of obtained data is more reli- able and valid than what parents can recall from memory. In addition, the strange environment of the schools adds a dimen— sion of realism not unlike what a child would face in school. Terming this test characteristic as a requirement reempha- sizes the applied performance setting that did serve to focus our developmental efforts. o Normative data from an E.S.E.A. Title I population with a large minority racial- ethnic segment. 0 A sampling of school readiness skills1 appropriate for three. four. and five year olds. o Validity and reliability data on the appropriate norming group. After reviewing several books2 of test critiques, this researcher is still unable to find a test that meets all the requirements stated above. The dissertation would result in developing a shorter prekindergarten screening test with known psychometric qualities and norms. The ultimate benefit is the ability to more accurately assess and select those pupils in greatest need of prekindergarten services. Other benefits which might be derived from such an instrument are: 0 Lower administrative costs resulting from tests administered by teachers and/or aides not to mention the shortened amount of time to administer. (This would negate the necessity to hire school psychologists.) 1School readiness skills relate to achievement in gross wotcuu fine motor. language. cognitive. and personal social ‘19 Velopment . 2The Mental Measurement Yearbooks by Oscar Buros; Tests sari Measurements in Child Development: A Handbook by Orval son and James Bommarito: Handbook for Measurement and \EValuatign in Early Childhood Education by William Goodwin an<1 Laura Driscoll: and CSE— ECRC— Preschool Kinde_g@rten Test Eléflluations edited by Ralph Hoepfner, Carolyn Stern and usan Nummedal. 0 Local norms applicable to other Title I prekindergarten populations with similar racial-ethnic compositions. 0 Reliability estimates to assess the con- sistency and replicability of results. 0 Chronological age norms to demonstrate the developmental nature of the school readiness skills chosen (construct validity). o Predictive validity estimates to allow the prospective user to judge this instru- ment's validity against other instruments. In summary. the purposes of this study are: (a) to determine the reliability. (b) to obtain estimates of construct and predictive validity, and (c) to develop norms to make the results interpretable in comparison to the norming group of a prekindergarten readiness screening instrument. .mvvffl'f' .II ‘ .| Jun ., ¢o&\ #— The CCILCR 3‘s. ‘7'!) 1 ml 01 v6¢vU is”, ' Schldtla 1"”1 47:4' p. there ar 13% that ‘ I P“! I ‘r-A- fin H n‘ : . e . fl ‘0 ‘S “1“rlc V ‘|~ DEFINITION OF TERMS The following definitions are supplied to provide a common meaning to key concepts in this study. Applied Performance Tests Applied performance tests refer to instruments in which the test stimulus. the desired response, and the surrounding conditions approximate the reality of an actual situation drawn from a specific role-based context (Slatter, 1980, p. 2). As can be inferred in the word "approximate" there are many alternative approaches to performance test- ing that range on the scale of realism. Prekindergarten Aged Children Prekindergarten aged children are defined in Michigan as youngsters who must be four years old by December 1 and cannot be five years old by December 2. Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) PRSD (see Appendix C for copy) is an individually administered 27 item applied performance checklist with Standardized spoken directions and a statement of an acceptable response for each item. The instrument aSsesses entry behavior and provides information for determining the eligibility for participation in Title I PIWEkindergarten programs. 10 Sc? aawn ing atte readznes 11 School Readiness School readiness refers to the ability to engage in a given school activity depending on the learner's exist- ing attention set, motivation, and state of developmental readiness (Gagne. 1970, pp. 277-301). an Hfi'l' 5.x” h‘ the state Ina“ \ :hflJt TEST EVALUATION QUESTIONS The following questions were formulated in light of the stated purpose to focus the further evaluation of the PRSD. (1) (2) (3) What is the estimated rater relia- bility of the PRSD? How does the ability of male and female prekindergarten aged pupils vary on the PRSD as a function of chronological age? What is the strength of the rela- tionship between school readiness and future measures of school achievement? 12 ticn is first se in the l the pre: sents pl OVERVIEW The general plan for the remainder of this disserta- tion is as follows. Chapter 2 deals with two topics. The first section contains a review of the historical changes in the mission of preschool education from the 1920's to the present. The second section deals with the key ele- ments pertaining to the construction and use of technically sound checklists. Chapter 3 consists of a description of the design and methods used to evaluate the psychometric qualities of the Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD). In Chapter 4 the findings are presented and dis- cussed. In Chapter 5. the summary and conclusions are offered plus recommendations for future studies. 13 3“ ' The sections. the ex;.a; II ,.eschcoj cf ccnst: *3 presc] this 890 ’:~‘ 43' aSS' CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature is divided into two major sections. The first section reviews the historical changes in the mission of early childhood education. The primary objective of this portion is to provide basic knowledge of the expanded range of educational objectives of present day preschool programs. The second section reviews principles of construction and administration of checklists as related to preschool identification. The primary objective of this section is to review some of the difficulties in check- list assessment. 14 mamm— wvvs: r 3;: .-l,‘ L. intrsduc educatic general is offer ! o, A .91).:w < I' a a 4 c ‘ .A 1‘ 'r‘bf n ;’_:-F~,. "m. Art-V" .A' U ‘1‘: AH: . it!“ . I- v 2.. I vf'w ‘ n v "a REVIEW OF LITERATURE - EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION This review of literature relates to education of children under the age of six. henceforth termed early childhood education. It is undertaken to provide an introduction to historical practices in early childhood education. The time frame of the review is primarily devoted to the period from the 1920's to the present when most organ- ized programs in the United States took place. A brief Igeneral review of early childhood education prior to 1920 is offered to provide the context for later developments. Tfiie review is focused on the following subtopics: history cxf early childhood education prior to 1920; historical Ireview of differences between objectives of nursery schools anid those of preschools: historical factors leading to the emergence of innovative programs of the decade of early cflrildhood education (1965—1975): and generalization and differences of the early childhood programs of this decade. Horfiafully. this review will impart an appreciation of the neCessarybreadth of skills embodied in present-day pre— 30 ho 01 programs . H181n3ry of Early Childhood Education Prior to 1220 Until the twentieth century. the years of childhood werTB on the whole, a most unhappy period of existence. SeIYLous investigators of ancient child rearing practices 15 rhhfir+ tyv. U A the a: I \ C9: .‘ur fidre ninete. asam: A‘W‘: r II. ‘.. 16 report that the further one goes back in history the less the amount of child care and the more likely children were to be abandoned. beaten. terrorized and abused. The mur- der of babies or infanticide was a common practice for centuries (Osborn. 1975). While the beginning of Christianity did reduce this practice, infanticide persisted into the nineteenth century. The western world's view of the child as a miniature adult, allowed children to be exploited during the Industrial Revolution. Osborn (1975: P. 12) quotes The Harmony of the Gospels printed in 1678 as follows: "Withhold not correction from the child. for if thou beatest liim with the rod he will not die, Thou shall beat him with 'the rod and deliver his soul from hell." Thus prior to 'the eighteenth century, the attitude of spare the rod and spoil the child caused many children to be, in reality, 'battered and abused. In this country the 1860-1930 period marked a rise 111 the childhood population which resulted in an accom- Palnying change in attitudes toward childhood. Osborn (1975) Sununarized this period as follows: u: 2‘07" "Ow uy. ~— 17 There was a rise in child popula- tion from 17 million in 1860 to 48 million by 1930. However, in percentage of total population there was a sharp decline (51% to 38%). Thus, as children became more visible. their needs became more apparent. In addition, more adults were available to devote time to care and rear children. These factors, coup- led with the rising opposition toward child labor and the increasing aware- ness of the need for education, helped to change attitudes concerning the role of the child in society (p. 22). Historical Review of Objectives of Early Childhood Programs Contrasted with the history of education for children over the age of six, the account of nursery and preschool instruction has been brief. In the United States nursery school instruction began in the 1920's. Until the early 1960's the goal of nursery schools was mainly to furnish day care for working-class children and to encourage the socio-emotional growth of middle-class children (Cazden. 1971: Dowley. 1969: Kamii. 1971: Osborn, 1975. Pp. 38-61; auud Sears and Dowley, 1963). By the middle of the 1960's, rurwever. the bulk of the intended recipient of such educa- tixan had shifted to the lower-lower-class, or "disadvan- taged" and was now termed preschool (Fallon. 1973. pp. 207- 2325; Lazerson, 1971: Goodwin and Driscoll, 1980, pp. 3-6; GCHodlad. Klein, and Novotney. 1973; Osborn, 1975. PP. 61— 71-: Stanley, 1972: and Shane. 1971). As the terms "nursery Scfliool" and "preschool” suggested, the focus of the . fli‘fl sale: (4' ’40 (7 has alwe ticns re between t 33/! fiase The N I 3“; A Ulhued at /. 18 educational effort had changed. The term nursery school has always tended to imply a downward extension of the func- tions related to the family. While preschool has little relationship to the family in its derivation, preschool suggested a downward extension of the school to prevent the failure of "disadvantaged" children in school. A short historical review may clarify the difference between the curricular objectives of the nursery schools and those of the later preschools. The majority of the first nursery schools in the Ihiited States were established by colleges and universi- tijes for research purposes. The research purposes were related to the discovery and demonstration of "better" ways of caring for young children. The objectives of these runrsery schools varied according to whether the sponsoring department of higher education was home economics. psy- cfiufilogy, medicine, or education. The curricular objectives 0f most of these schools consisted. however, primarily of habit: training, for example, eating. napping, and the Promcrtion of physical health (Sears and Dowley, 1963, p. 815). {The first involvement of the federal government in ' Nursery school education occurred during the depression years; of the 1930's under the Works Progress Administration (WPA) program. The primary objective of the WPA program was to provide work for unemployed teachers, nurses and in“ icvfil I '8‘!" Ud.‘ (u C) *6 (N Nun. 'l “HQ‘J 19 helpers from 1933 to 1942 (Osborn, 1975. p. 48). The curriculum continued to stress physical health and the "good" habits of sleeping. elimination. dressing, washing, and eating. and so forth, with the surplus food made avail- able from the government program of economic supports for farmers (Kamii. 1971. p. 283). The World War II years brought about another spurt of growth for the nursery school movement. The federal funds of the Lanham Act provided for day care centers for young children whose mothers worked in strategic war industries. Although the curriculum continued to emphasize habits and routines related to health and welfare of the child with longer period of "free" play, a new concern for childrens emotional well being became more widespread as the war related child care programs continued (Sears and Dowley. 1963. p. 815). This new concern for youngsters' social-emotional life came from a number of sources includ- ing: Freudian theory: longer hours at nursery school resulting in more behavior problems: disturbances in parent- child relationships as the result of the mother's employment and the father's absence (Stolz, 1954); the writings of Frank (1938). Gesell (1940, 1943), and Spock (1946). Frank analyzed the essential learnings of early childhood in relation to the child's fundamental emotional needs as a fGaling. responding individual. He cautioned teachers about Sm}: a rd lea the chi as CHI: 01‘ 20 dangers of excessive expectations resulting in disturbances of children's personal. social. and cultural growth. Gesell displayed hundreds of physiological and mental aspects of development which he believed. followed a more or less repeatable pattern in all children during the first five years of life. He. in particular, emphasized the signifi- cance of the developmental elements in emotional development. Spock assigned new significance to the concept that growing and learning proceed more smoothly if allowed to occur in the child's own way and time. While nursery schools began as child care centers, they thus gradually took on the function of providing preventive psychiatry (Kamii. 1971, p. 285). The post-war years saw the stoppage of federal funds for nursery school care based on the assumption that women :Nho had been drawn into wartime industries would return to ‘their full-time home responsibilities. This was not always tdie case. however. and the parent cooperative nursery sczhool movement sought a variety of ways and means through cc>operative efforts to keep child care centers open. While tire nursery school movement had fostered children's social adlci emotional growth ever since its beginning as part of Providing good care, the cooperative nursery school move— Imerrt placed a new conscious effort on encouraging socio- emOtional growth. This objective came to be expanded upon in the 1940's (Dowley. 1969. pp. 320-321). :pnas contri prsgra ness a the ci ways t land. 21 Although as Kamii (1971. p. 285) found that cognitive development was a concern of many nursery school educators since the 1920's. it was not until the 1960's that real emphasis was placed on it. In the 1960's two major factors contributed to a shift from nursery school to preschool programs that emphasized cognitive growth and other readi- ness abilities necessary for success in school. One was the civil rights movement that, among other things. sought ways to provide more opportunities to minorities of this land. The answer from the federal government was massive fundings for both lower and middle class youngsters. A more striking result, already alluded to. was the establish- ment of a large number of new educational programs for children in the preschool or early school years. On the whole, these new programs had a "compensatory" flavor: focusing primarily on children from poor families, they were designed to remedy the usually one to three year devel- opmental lag of the entering disadvantaged children in the public school setting. A vast majority of these programs screened children so that their staffs could determine the child's educational needs before school entry and determine if placement in their program or some other special program 'was the best decision (Zeitlin, 1976). Fallon (1973) described the general theory that most of these compen- satory preschool programs operate under as: 22 How well and how rapidly children develop their mental model of the world depends largely on their environment. The more the child has seen and heard. the greater is his desire to see and to hear. The greater the variety of things he has learned to cope with, the greater his capacity to cope. Much that tradi- tionally has been taught to older chil- dren can and should be taught in the early years (p. 208). This brief historical review has shown the evolution of the nursery school as starting with general objectives that became more and more differentiated. This evolution came about as a result of social and historical forces that focused on different aspects of the developing child.1 In reality, it has never been possible to separate the physical care of the children (emphasis of traditional nursery schools since 1920's) from their socio-emotional development (emphasis of cooperative parent nursery schools since 1940's) or their socio-emotional development from intellectual and other school readiness abilities devel— <3pment (emphasis in preschools since 1960's). 1These forces will be explored in greater detail in the next section. 23 The various preschool programs in existence today differ considerably in their objectives and methods of instruction as evident by a study of various prekindergarten programs (Cazden, 1971: Chapman and Lazar. 1971: Fallon. 1973: Goodwin and Driscoll, 1980. pp. 421-468: Hess and Bear. 1968: Kamii, 1971: National School Public Relations Associa- tion. 1970. 1973: Sears and Dowley. 1963: and Stanley. 1972). These references capture the range of nursery school and preschool objectives from the 1920's through the late 1970's. Kamii (1971. p. 286) offered the following broad objectives of preschool education: 1. Socio-emotional development, 2. Perceptual-motor development, 3. Cognitive development, and 4. Language development. 11 review of the above sources bear out that these cate- gories still were appropriate through the late 1970's as a Ineans to categorize broadly early childhood objectives. Eiaéztors Related to the Renewed Interest in the 1960's of Eflly Childhood Education In the United States in the 1960's.zameeting of aca- deemic and socio-political forces created productive condi- 13ions for a rebirth of activity in early childhood education (DOwley. 1969, 1971: Fallon. 1973: Goodwin and Driscoll, 1980, p. 3; Osborn, 1975. pp. 54-55: Shane. 1971). A s . . . u(leesszion of persua81ve statements from the academ1c world 33's“ n .I" “Lay h. . 5‘ .fi" :- ‘H 1:; 0‘ . 24 asserted very strongly the importance of early experience. Kirk's experimental work (1958) with educable mentally retarded children showed that the enriched preschool edu- cational environment. on the whole. increased rates of growth following educational opportunities at a young age. Bruner emphasized the role of education in children's intellectual development by stating. "Any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development" (1960, p. 33). Hunt (1961) questioned the notion that intelligence is fixed at birth and contended that an enriched environment. especially in early childhood. could make a meaningful difference in both the rate and level of intellectual devel— opment. Bennett. Diamond, Kretch, and Rosenzweig (1964) (conducted research on infrahuman subjects that strongly Sfllggested that memory cells, brain size, and the blood Shapplied to the cerebral hemispheres actually can be irlcreased by changes in the environment to create stimulat- irig;surroundings. Bloom's research (1964) of longitudinal £3‘tiudies determined that intellectual development occurs at 831 accelerated rate in the early years of life and there- fWDre concluded that environment is most critical then. The <2Oncern for mental development was further aroused by a ESIWDwing recognition of Piaget's work. Hall (1965. 1966) aUWCi other cultural anthropologists accumulated suggestive 25 evidence that it is during the first four or five years of life that many personal behaviors (such as language. atti- tude, values. and ways of learning) begin to take on the form they will retain for a lifetime. All these works emphasized the importance of the early childhood years as the foundation for later ability and development. Various socio-political forces also produced interest in early childhood education. These forces undoubtedly served as a greater stimulus to action than the academic forces. The civil rights movement and 1954 Supreme Court decision (i.e.. striking down the concept of separate but equal schools for each race) helped focus on the needs of minorities. The violence and social unrest of the early 1960's in many urban areas were thought to be rooted in the povertyedisadvantaged cycle - a frustrating, devastat- .ing treadmill, which particularly trapped young. poor black EInd other minorities (Goodwin and Driscoll, 1980, p. 3). .A.large number of minority youngsters entered school loehind in achievement and fell behind further each year iin.school. Such events and theory led. at least in part, ‘to the federal war on poverty as well as attempts to Eequalize educational opportunity through such efforts as Iieadstart, Home Start. Title I of the Elementary and 53econdary Act of 1965. and school integration. During the Esahm time the rising divorce rate plus the increasing 26 number of women entering the work force emphasized the need for child care. The women's liberation movement advanced child care as a high priority need for women in general. The ”Sputnik Counterreaction" served as another socio- political force for the advancement of early childhood edu- cation. After the jolting realization of the Soviet advance- ment in space exploration provided by Sputnik in 1957 and the early wave of criticism of American education, there seemed to be in the early 1960's a reaffirmation of public support for education. One result of these converging factors was a gradual increase in preschool enrollment, especially among chil- dren of the middle class, and an increase in day care ser- vices of programs to help prevent school failures among the lower-lower-class children. Another was the accumula- tion of knowledge suggesting that the early childhood years inere the most susceptible to intervention. Federal fundings for Headstart and Title I Preschool Ixrograms still continued into the 1980's. Lazar and lDarlington (1979). as reported in Chapter One in greater (detail. found in their longitudinal study that lasting Inasitive effects and academic gains were possible through Ilreschools aimed at disadvantaged youngsters in cognitive (Driented programs. Other recent newspaper articles ( "Preschool Education Pays Off for Students, Study Says." n! ‘r/ I). no a AP. ‘f‘ 'IV In :9 hips 335 .h_. fins . 27 1980: "Preschool Research Shows Lasting Benefit," 1980: "Preschool Programs Cost Effective, Riles Says." 1980) reported that preschool programs have been somewhat effective in showing some lasting benefits. but failed to wipe out the differences between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged youngsters as once promised. Still other newspaper articles as "The Ups and Downs of Preschool Intervention" (1980) reported that early childhood is still being oversold. This article suggests that researchers would be better off entertaining the hypothesis that there are certain environmental nutrients that optimize devel- opment of all stages. Generalizations and Differences of Present-Day Early Childhood Programs Osborn (1975. pp. 62-63) offered a number of gener- alizations and differences stemming from an analysis of the wide variety of innovative early childhood programs devel- oped between 1965-1975. Most of these programs were still .in operation as the 1980's began with the prospects of iuucreasing numbers of preschoolers taking part in these acrtivities (Goodwin and Driscoll, 1980, pp. 3-6). Most developers of preschool programs adhered to the following gefieralizations in the operation of their programs. 28 Children should not be left to "unfold" in accordance with the nature of the child and the natural environment. Children under the age of six were expected to gain from an enriched and systematic curriculum. Involvement of parents in the homework assignments and activities was essen- tial. The enhancement of the self-image (or ego development) of the learner was essential. Teachers allowed time to provide for individual instruction. Skills emphasized were deemed to insure success in later academic per- formance. Although all programs have emphasized the importance of the early childhood years, some programs have stressed education before two years of age mainly through home instruction. Program models also differed along the fol- lowing dimensions. 1. Structure: Some programs used a great deal of structure (e.g.. Engelmann- Bereiter Program): some a moderate amount (e.g.. Montessori Schools): and others very little (e.g., British Infant school). Fallon (1973) pro- vided a good synopsis of each of these specific programs mentioned above plus examples for the remaining dimensions listed below. Reinforcement: While all models strove to ultimately rely on intrinsic rein- forcement. some programs used token reinforcements and other programs stressed social reinforcement. buy Qu OUAJ F n 0‘. 29 3. Curriculum: Some programs focused on cognitive aspects of the curriculum: others emphasized social-emotional. creative arts. It must be noted that all programs recognized the importance of language. 4. Teacher Role: Some programs stressed a passive non-directive role for the teacher: others emphasized the teacher's role as the "stage setter:" and others accented the active. direct role of the teacher. 5. Activities: In some programs, chil- dren have a large assortment of activi- ties available. while in others there is little or no choice in activity selection. Osborn (1975) ends these observations with the follow- ing: Perhaps the final generalization is the most valuable to remember--To date no single program has been found to be the best program for ail children. All models can "point with pride" at their successes and "view with alarm" some of their short- comings (p. 64). "'0'“ 3.. .. .....'...J -.._—— .1- qfl‘.‘ I1 'I .1 .n... AH fl H schesl are co school REVIEW OF LITERATURE - CHECKLIST CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINIS- TRATION ' In an attempt to discover which youngsters need pre- school programs. some knowledge about how rating scales are constructed and can be employed to reliably assess school readiness of potential compensatory education young- sters seems essential. The review consists of the follow- ing subtopics: assumptions behind the construction of rating scales generally and checklists in particular, sources of common errors associated with checklists. and means to overcome these errors. Aasumption Behind the Construction of Checklists Guilford (1954) stated. The use of ratings rests on the assumption that the human observer is a good instrument of quantitative obser- vation. that he is capable of some degree of precision and some degree of objec- tivity. His ratings are taken to mean something accurate about certain aspects of the object rated (p. 278). Checklists have been described as unique in terms of quantitative judgment compared with other forms of rating scales (i.e.. numerical, graphic, standard, and forced choice) because checklists require the least discrimina- tion on the part of the rater. Specifically, the rater is required to use a two step scale. Thus only cases near the rater's threshold present difficulty in judging. Since scoring of cumulative point checklists usually 30 132': 1W very sf 0 FIV“ Av J ‘fi‘v‘ Q \‘ '5- V-“ >- V". i "4:: ‘I U " 3‘ .‘\:. .~‘:‘ U I‘- M." A“? V 3'.‘ Q ‘ ‘EI ‘ ‘ ~' ‘7‘- .‘ fit“. . I I '7 "‘5 ‘22} v I.‘\‘ Q': 1“ In, “ 5‘1: ‘4‘ ‘\ b. 'q: FA‘ ‘16 ,. I.- b. _ -‘. I any“ a t ‘ v“ V: ‘l I I s .‘ ‘J, v ‘5 ‘i A :. 5‘ . l I ~ \ ~ I‘ ‘ .. L ~50 (7" 31 involve weights of +1 or O for each item. scoring was also very simple. Guilford (1954. p. 273) speaking of checklists spe- cifically listed the applications in the following areas: employee's value to his/her organization. simple traits of personality. achievement tests. and proficiency measures. Guilford (1954) stated. When the items are of specific actions that are observed by the rater. the checklist becomes essentially an achievement or proficiency test and its score has the status that would be accorded to that type of measure (pp- 273-274). Source of Common Errors Associated with Checklists Checklists have a number of possible common sources of errors. Errors have been associated with the follow— ing: the personality of the rater. the scale itself (ambiguity). the nature of the action or trait itself. and the opportunity afforded the rater for observation (Mehrens and Lehmann. 1973. pp. 356-358). Raters come to the rat- ing tasks with personal bias that tend to influence ratings and cause errors. Some of these errors associated with the rater's personality go by the following names: the halo effect. severity effect. central tendency error. and logical error.1 \ 1Various authors cover these common errors related to r‘Eiters. For the reader unfamiliar with these errors the fcDllowing sources may be consulted: Guilford. 1954, DP). 278-280: Isaac. 1971. p. 58: Mehrens and Lehmann. 1973. DP). 357-358: and Remmers. 1963, pp. 372-373. 32 The scale itself may be ambiguous and this has also been cited as a source of errors. Mehrens and Lehmann (1973) defined ambiguity as "wording and meaning of the traits being measured - such that the rater may be uncer- tain as to what it is he is really being asked to rate" (p. 356). Ambiguity may be in the trait or the frame of reference between different levels of the trait being rated. For example. the trait of aggressiveness may be ambiguous if left operationally undefined because aggres- siveness can be viewed as a positive trait (appropriately self-assertive) and a negative trait (hostility). An example of the frame of reference ambiguity could relate to the criteria of superior. good. and inferior as they have been related to swimming. What each of these terms meant in relation to swimming depended upon both the nature of the swimming trait being measured (type of stroke - crawl versus dog paddle) and the age and ability of the rater (60 year old man with a heart condition versus 20 year old man with no heart condition). The nature of the trait or action being rated may cause errors. It has been well documented that as a trait moves from a unitary action to a series of actions the complexity of the rating and the possibility of errors increases. The length of observation also has a definite bear- ing on the amount of error that may enter into ratings. This is observe observe ject be 33 This is especially true when ratings have been based on observation alone without either a chance for extensive observation and/or a chance to ask questions of the sub- ject being observed (Mehrens and Lehmann. 1973. p. 358). Meaaagto Overcome These Erraga Various authors (Borg and Call. 1971. pp. 234-239: Guilford. 1954. pp. 271-298: Mehrens and Lehmann. 1973. pp. 357-361) agreed that careful definition of behaviors to be rated and training of raters were the most effective and feasible means of improving the reliability and validity of ratings. Some points to consider in the clear defini- tion of traits or actions were the following: 0 Identify the action to be rated as a simple. unitary aspects of behavior when possible. Horrocks and Schoonover (1968. pp. 447-448) found. the more complex the behavior. the more diffi- cult it was to operationally define and obtain high inter-rater reliability. 0 Define the action or trait to be rated as much as possible in operational terms. 0 Use common expressions and avoid tech- nical jargon when possible for clarity. 0 State the action to be rated as a ques- tion rather than a declarative statement. 0 Establish the same set in the minds of raters by rating the most specific action possible and being the most descriptive of the response options (nature of correct and incorrect responses in the case of checklists). Some 34 Stay clear of terms implying ethical. moral. or social evaluations as correct or incorrect responses. unless dealing Specifically with such behaviors. Establish good cutting points for categories along an action or trait continuum (correct and incorrect responses in the case of a checklist). A good cutting point applies to a point or very short range on the con- tinuum being rated. points to consider in improving ratings by means of a training session were the following: Discuss the checklist form with the raters. describing each item suffi- ciently to develop a thorough under— standing of why the data is being collected. under what conditions the observation should take place. what is to be observed. and how it is to be recorded. Comment frequently during the train- ing session on the value of accurate and honest reporting. Discuss the kinds of errors usually committed by raters either through personal bias and/or logical errors and how they might be avoided. or at least minimized. Conduct some "dry runs" to give raters practice. If possible videotape test- ing sessions to serve as material for "dry runs." Provide discussion after "dry runs" to further clarify rating practices and procedures. Calculate inter-rater reliabilities after practice sessions to estimate the degree to which observers are developing a common frame of refer- ence. 35 The above enumerated recommendations for better written checklists and adequate training sessions offer the possi- bility for improved consistency of ratings. When they are applied in a professional manner. rater agreement should remain consistently high across subjects rated. SUMMARY The review of literature covered two seemingly unre- lated topics - historical changes in early childhood edu- cation's mission and the error associated with checklists. The linkage between the topics was shown to be due to the compensatory educational nature of present-day preschool programs that require screening (sometimes by means of checklists) of potential participants. Early childhood education as an organized enterprise in the United States has a short history. The first such endeavors started in the 1920's as nursery schools attached to universities and colleges for research purposes. Their curriculum con- sisted of habit training and the promotion of physical health. Federal funding during the depression years and then again during World War II increased the number of nursery schools but changed little their curriculum other than an increase of an emphasis on socio-emotional growth in the 1940's. During the 1960's. a combination of academic and socio-political forces finally lead to massive federal funding of compensatory education preschool programs to prevent school failure among lower-lower-class children. The curriculum of these preschools emphasized cognitive growth and other abilities necessary for success in schools while drawing curriculum elements from the former nursery school movement. Present-day preschools enjoy a great 36 37 variety in the composition of curriculum. but for the most part focus upon the following four areas of development: socio-emotional. perceptual-motor. cognitive. and language. Any readiness screening device fOr preSchool education should be broad enough to cover these areas of child devel- opment. Further such screening may be accomplished by means of a checklist as a means to measure readiness skills. While checklists at first glance appeared to be a simple measurement tool. errors of measurement were possible from a number of sources.. The personality of the rater. the scale itself. the nature of the action (or trait). and the opportunity afforded the rater were all classified as common sources of error. Specific suggestions from the literature were offered to combat these errors under the broad headings of clearer definition of action rated and provisions for training raters. .,~. q.‘ x: P.. L A: ‘ . nw \.v CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY This chapter provides a description of the methods and procedures used to further develop and evaluate the Prekindergarten Readapess Screening Deviaa_(PRSD). The chapter is divided into the following major sections: setting. instrumentation. rater reliability study. con- struct validity study. predictive validity study. and summary. The three study sections provide the details to the three major thrusts of this developmental research effort: 1) determine rater reliability by raters view- ing a common videotaped testing session. 2) estimate con- struct validity by examining percent passing by age interval. and 3) assess predictive validity by correlat- ‘ ing two achievement instruments. Each study section has discussion under the following headings: test evaluation questions. subjects. procedures. and analysis. A number of measurement instruments are referred to by their acronyms in the following text.1 1These instruments and their associated acronyms follow: the Metrgpolitan Achievement Test (MAT). the Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD). and the Prekindergarten Saginaw Objective Referenced Test (PSORT). 38 SETTING The study took place in Saginaw. Michigan. a mid— western industrial city of approximately 85.000. During the past decade increasing numbers of middle class white and middle class black families have been moving out from the city school district into the surrounding suburbs. Unskilled and semiskilled workers who have found employ- ment in one of the city's three foundries have moved their families into the vacant homes left by the flight to the suburbs. The study's data came from the School District of the City of Saginaw's Title I Prekindergarten program. This program. which has been in operation for the past twelve years. was funded through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was designed to provide four year olds with an environment that would enable them to be ready for entry into school. The ultimate purpose of this program was to prepare inner city children. many of whom came from backgrounds that may not have equipped them with the skills necessary for success in school. for entry into kindergarten. After a year of prekindergarten. it was hoped these children would at least be on a par with other five year olds as they entered kindergarten. 39 40 Since September. 1977. the Saginaw Prekindergarten Program has been designated by the Michigan State Depart- ment of Education as a Demonstration Site in the Michigan Adoption Program. In order to achieve this distinction. it had to meet the Department's criteria for an exemplary program. including a comprehensive validation of its out- comes. What this meant was that the Prekindergarten Program had proven so successful over the past several years that it was now recognized as a model program that could be adOpted by local districts around the State of Michigan. At the time of the study there were approximately 420 children enrolled at the program's twelve sites: Baillie. Coulter. Emerson. Haley. Houghton. Jones. Longfellow. Loomis. Morley. Potter. Rouse and Salina (see Appendix D for the Saginaw day school elementary official membership by grade and racial and ethnic counts by building). The Prekindergarten staff included a supervisor. certified early childhood teachers. teacher aides. a graphic arts aide and a secretary. With the exception of two half-day sites. each school Operated two ses- sions. one from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and another from 12:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m. Class sizes ranged up to 20 children per half-day session. 41 The program's instructional approach closely followed many aspects of Piagetian Theory. Jean Piaget. one of the world's foremost child psychologists. spent years study— ing the development of young children. He found that all children pass through certain stages of intellectual development. Growth. according to Piaget. was a process of exploring. manipulating. adapting. and assimilating the environment. and children go through various stages in an attempt to integrate or organize what they have observed. The rationale forthis approach was explained by Almy (1966. p. 127). Piaget's Theory clearly carries the implication that the young child has as much. if not more. to learn from his own active encounters with his physical environment and from his exchanges with his peers as he has from the adult. But adults. parents. and teachers ... are constantly responsible for decisions that determine the nature of the child's encounters and exchanges. The idea was to make children feel good about them- selves and about going to school. Teachers encouraged the children to experience as many activities and aspects of the program as possible without fear of failure. Activi- ties were centered around three domains: psychomotor (small muscle and large muscle body movement). affective (social. attitudinal and emotional). and cognitive (reason- ing and knowledge). (Appendix E presents the Title I Prekindergarten Activity Observation Checklist which gives p) (or- g (I) a}: VI‘ ‘I ' I t.‘ :V' l" 42 the broad types of activities in the three domains and gives a key for categorizing specific activities into these areas.) Thus in prekindergarten the children were in essence. learning to learn. Language development was an important ingredient in the program and teachers were encouraged to stress it daily. Many children came from environments that place little emphasis on verbal communication. As a result. they were often unable to express themselves well verbally. One of the major goals of the program was to surround the chil- dren with language while they were in the classroom in an attempt to increase both their vocabulary and self? confidence. Another major goal was parent involvement. Each teacher was required to make at least one home visit to meet parents and to get an idea of each child's home situa- tion. Parents were encouraged to come to class with their children and participate. All prekindergarten parents were urged to take an active role in the child's education. Materials were sent home regularly so that parents and children could work together on various activities. The 'parent program was designed to teach parents to work more effectively with their children. The program had goals and objectives (see Appendix F) that children worked on throughout the year. The struc- ture of the program was in its planning and delivery system. 43 The above described setting should provide background into specifically what type of community Saginaw is and also the components of its operational prekindergarten pro- gram. However. the major purpose of this chapter is to provide a description of the methods and procedures employed in the three studies of_the PRSD. Before a detailed descrip- tion of the three studies is offered. an explanation of the instrumentation is furnished. INSTRUMENTATION This section focuses on the three measurement instru- ments employed in the studies to be described in the next three sections. First. the theoretical and historical background related to the development of the PRSD will be discussed. Since the further development and evaluation of the PRSD is the aim of this study. the instrument itself is described in some detail. Next both of the criterion measures for the predictive validity portion of the study are described and reliability estimates are presented. Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) PRSD (see Appendix C for copy) is an individually administered 27 item applied performance checklist with standardized spoken directions and a statement of an accept- able response for each item. The instrument was designed to assess the entry behavior in early September of pre- kindergarten aged pupils who are potentially eligible for participation into Title I prekindergarten programs. The skills included on the PRSD are those that research findings and teacher observations have deter- mined that most four year olds possess (see Appendix G for research references). A small percentage of three and five year old skills were also included to give a broader range to the behaviors assessed. Table 3.1 which follows gives the behaviors requested of the pupils for each question. 44 TABLE 3.1. OF PUPILS ON THE PREKINDERGARTEN READINESS T————-_—————_—_— tem 45 ITEM NUMBERS AND SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS REQUESTED SCREENING DEVICE (PRSD). Behavior Requested Number 1 Say last name 2 Say age 3 Point to neck 4 Identify body part 5 Tell function of body part 6 Pick up same colored object 7 Pick up object colored same as named color 8 Say color of object 9 Say color of object 10 Count to-five 11 Give me four blocks 12 Say number of remaining blocks 13 Pick up blocks 14 Walk backwards 15 Carries out 3-part command 16 Tell what books are for 17 Draw cross given model 18 HOp after demonstrated 19 Throw ball five feet 20 Point to shape like a wheel 21 Point to shape like a tent 22 Point to shape like a stick 23 Tell which of two objects is bigger 24 Draw diamond given model 25 Tell nursery rhyme. song. poem 26 Say yellow jello 27 Verbal response to the above questions given in more than just one word responses 46 The PRSD resulted from the pilot form of the instru- ment developed jointly in 1975 by the Saginaw prekinder— garten staff and the present author. The pilot version underwent further revisions in 1976 based on teacher observations gained in the prior administration. In June of 1977. an indepth review was undertaken by the author of the test by means of a training videotape developed to aid in the administration of the instrument. From dis- crepancies noted between the instrument and the video- tape it was decided that administration and scoring direc- tions needed to be further standardized if the PRSD was to yield consistent results. Standardized directions and scoring instructions were developed prior to September. 1977 and have been used since. Prekindergarten Saginaw Objective Referenced Testa(PSORT) PSORT (see Appendix H for a copy) is an objective referenced test of 31 items dealing with both psychomotor and cognitive outcomes in prekindergarten program areas. The first 17 items measured the program's nine cognitive product objectives while the remaining 14 dealt with the four fine and gross motor objectives (see Appendix F for a copy of the product objectives and summary of mastery criteria). .PSORT was an applied performance checklist with standardized directions and a statement of an accept— able response for each item much like the PRSD. The 4? major difference between the PSORT and PRSD is that PSORT was designed as an outcome measure sensitive to changes brought about by Saginaw's Title I Prekindergarten Pro— gram within a narrow range of behavior deemed apprOpriate to the program. The PRSD sampled a wider range of behaviors and was not specifically designed to be sensi- tive to a particular educational program. Reliabilities of PSORT ratings were determined by having 20 raters view a videotape of two students and rate these students on the basis of PSORT scoring directions. Intra-class correlations as described by Ebel (1951) were calculated with the reliability of ratings being .761. and the reliability of average ratings being .984. Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT) The MAT used in this study is the preprimer level survey battery of the 1978 edition of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests published by the Psychological Corpora- tion. The MAT was employed as part of the official test- ing program of the Saginaw Public Schools. A group of teachers representative of Saginaw teachers had chosen MAT because its items best matched Saginaw's curriculum in kindergarten and first grades. The MAT served as a criterion measure for the predictive validity of the PRSD. The preprimer level test covered important skills and content areas normally taught at the beginning of 48 kindergarten through the middle of kindergarten (Prescott. Balow. Hogan. and Farr. 1978). This test was designed to yield both norm-referenced and criterion-referenced infor- mation like many of the newer achievement tests. A study of the reliability of the MAT's total test score was undertaken with the 346 potential prekinder- garten students who were first screened in September. 1978 on the PRSD. The Kuder-Richardson 20 estimated relia— bility for the April. 1980 administration of MAT on the former screened students was .909. The 346 pupils over all scored at the 22 percentile on the MAT. The next section provides a description of the rater reliability study. This study is the first of three studies to be described in the process of the further devel- opment and evaluation of the PRSD. BELIABILITY The estimation of rater reliability was one of three studies undertaken to further develop and evaluate the PRSD. This study consisted of teachers and aides rating the performance of two children after viewing their video- taped testing sessions. A short training period was held prior to scoring the two children on videotape. Intra- class correlations were calculated. Further details of the study follow under the headings of test evaluation question. subjects. procedures. and analysis. Test Evaluation Question This study was undertaken to answer the following question: What is the estimated rater reliability of the PRSD? This question was formulated on the basis of the commonly held assumption that an applied performance test with standardized administration and scoring directions can bring about consistent results with trained staff. However. a check of the level of reliability of measure- ment seemed necessary because both standardization and training are relative to the context of the measurement and the population being measured. Consistent results were defined as reliability coefficients to be in the upper range of the r values. usually .70 to .98 (Guilford. 1973’ p0 92). 50 Subjects Nineteen adults (eleven teachers and eight aides) employed by the Title I Prekindergarten Program comprised the sample for the rater reliability portion of the study. All raters were female. All eleven teachers (100%) and four aides (50%) had administered the PRSD prior to the rater reliability study. Approval for participation of subjects was obtained from both the School District of the City of Saginaw and the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (see Appendix I for copies of both letters). Procedures Teachers and aides participated in a rater relia- bility study on the morning of November 21. 1980. A training session of approximately fifteen minutes pre- ceeded the actual study. During the training session the following topics were covered: purpose and rationale of the instrument. use of answer sheet to indicate responses. correct responses for the items. and what can be done to avoid typical rating errors. After the training session. all participants scored two videotaped testing sessions using answer sheets. These adult subjects were asked to score the PRSD and PSORT on the basis of commonly viewed videotaped testing sessions of two pupils each for both instruments. This participation was part of a training exercise that was scheduled on the part of the 51 prekindergarten supervisor. After the answer sheets were collected. a short discussion was held at’the end of each PRSD screening session to obtain ways to improve the scor- ing and/or administration directions. Analysis The rater reliability was estimated by means of the intra-class correlation coefficient for both an individual rater and the average of the group. The rater reliability has been the critical estimate of reliability for check- lists due to errors related to rater misinterpretation of checklist items. The assumptions underlying the use of intra—class cor- relation for reliability estimates are the following: the error of measurement is uncorrelated with the true score. the sample of people on whom the observations are made is a random sample from a population of people to which infer- ences are to be made. the sample of raters used is a random sample from a population of comparable raters. and that the within-person variance may be pooled to provide an estimate of its magnitude (Winer. 1971. p. 286). In addition. the percentage of raters scoring each item consistent with the original rater (the prekindergarten supervisor) over the two test administrations were reviewed to identify questions that seemed to be particularly troublesome to obtain scorer agreement. These items then 52 will be compared with error prone items mentioned in the feedback session after each scoring session. CONSTRUCT VALIDITY The second study undertaken was the exploration of one aspect of the PRSD's construct validity. This study involved testing if a monotonically increasing relation- ship existed between percent passing an item and each pro- gressively higher chronological age interval. A test for trend in ordered.contingency tables was used to test for significance of the monotonically increasing relation between proportion passing and age. Further details of the study follow under the headings of test evaluation question. subjects. procedures. and analysis. Test Evaluationgguestion The construct validity study sought to test the following hypothesis stated in narrative as well as sym- bolic forms. Hypothesis 1. Null Hypothesis: No monotonically increasing relationship is shown in the proportion of pre- kindergarten subjects passing an item on the PRSD at each progressively higher chronological age interval. Symbolically: Ho : P132 P2 3 P312 P4 Legend: Pk = proportion of pupils passing an item at a given chronological age interval k (where k = 1 repre- sents the youngest age interval) 53 54 Alternate Hypothesis: A monotonically increasing relationship is shown in the proportion of pre- kindergarten subjects passing an item on the PRSD at each progressively higher chronological age interval. Symbolipally: H1 : P1 < P2 < P3 < P4 Legend: Pk = proportion of pupils passing an item ' at a given chronological age interval k (where k = 1 represents the youngest age interval) . Hypothesis 1 was based on the common practice for preschool and infant tests to be validated in terms of age differentiation (Anastasi, 1970. p. 474). In other words. test results at the item level were checked against chronological age to determine whether performance showed an improvement with advancing age. However. age progres- sion of items is a necessary but not sufficient condition for construct validity. Thus. if the percentage passing each item fails to improve with age. such a finding indi- cates that the test is not a valid measure of readiness since it is supposed to increase with age with a broad sampling of individuals. On the other hand. to prove that a test measures something that increases with age does not define the particular area covered by the test very pre— cisely. But it may be looked upon as providing one piece of evidence related to showing that the test has one element related to the nomological network related to the con- struct of readiness. 55 Subjects A total of 1.415 potential Title I preschool pupils served as the sample for estimating the construct validity of the PRSD. These subjects were screened for possible participation during the three consecutive school years of 1978-79. 1979-80. and 1980-81. Almost all subjects screened were four years old by December 1 and would not be five years old by December 2 in the year of their screening. Approximately 50% were females (see Appendix J for exact counts by sex and age). Racial ethnic background of the subjects was approximately the following: 77% Black. 16% Latino or Spanish. 6% White. 0.2% American Indian. 0.1% Asian. and 0.6% unknown (see Appendix K for exact counts). Almost all the children tested resided in the Title I attendance area of the School District of the City of Saginaw. The Title I attendance area has been so designated because of the low academic achievement results of the elementary student populations. The large majority of low social economic status inhabitants of Saginaw live in these attendance areas (see Appendix L for the latest available census data for this area). Approval for participation of subjects was obtained from both the School District of the City of Saginaw and the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (see Appendix I for copies of both letters). 56 Procedures Potential prekindergarten pupils were screened during September and October for three consecutive years (1978. 1979. and 1980) using the PRSD. Teachers and aides screened the pupils as part of the selection process for participation into the Title I Prekindergarten program. The test administrators were given a training session on how to administer the PRSD in early September. prior to the starting of the screening process each year. In addition. the researcher and the program supervisor observed testing sessions and afterwards corrected administration and scoring errors observed for each of the three years. The resulting answers along with demographic information of the pupil (month and year of birth. sex. and race) were recorded directly on a standard optical scanning answer sheet. These answer sheets were machine scored locally. Analysis Hypothesis 1 related to each item was tested by means of a chi-square test followed by a test for trend in an ordered contingency table (Marascuilo and McSweeney. 1977. pp. 198-202). This test was chosen because it is the only easily available statistical test to test the particular hypothesis of interest. Specifically. the hypothesis was tested in the follow- ing manner: The observed frequencies were displayed in a 57 contingency table constructed of chronological age groups (4 years or less. 4 years 1 month to 4 years 3 months. 4 years 4 months to 4 years 6 months. and 4 years 7 months or more: age as of September of each school year) across the top crossed by pass and fail down the side for each of the PRSD items. table layout used for each item. Figure 3.1. Chi-Square Contingency Table Layout Used for Each Item of the PRSD. Figure 3.1 below presents the contingency Answer Status PRSD Item Age Group (Year-Month) 4-0 or less 4-1 to 4-3 4-4 to 4-6 4-7 or more Total Pass Fail Total Chi-square values were calculated on the basis of expected frequencies determined from marginal totals from each con- tingency table. By using linear regression theory the portion of the chi-square attributable to the monotonicity A of the relationship was determined by calculating B and SEE. The resulting value offltz due to the monotonicity of the linear trend analysis was tested at alpha = .05. Cramer's contingency coefficients were calculated for the variation 58 due to the monotonicity of the regression for each test item. If the majority of Cramer's contingency coefficients were .20 or greater then separate percentiles by age group would be calculated. If the majority of Cramer's contingency coefficients were below .20. then a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient would be calculated for the associa— tion of chronological age (age expressed as a decimal. for example. 4 years 5 months = 4.05) and total PRSD raw score. If this correlation was .20 or greater then separate percentiles would still be calculated for each age group. on the other hand. if the correlation was less than .20 then only percentiles for the total group would be calcu- lated. Kuder-Richardson 20 and split-half (even versus odd) reliabilities were calculated using the data set from the construct validity study. The obtained split-half reliability was corrected by means of a derived formula from the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula by Horst (1951) which estimates total test reliability from parts of unequal length (see Appendix M for formula). PREDICTIVE VALIDITY The final study undertaken was the assessment of the PRSD's predictive validity. The results of the PSORT administration of October. 1978 and April. 1979 plus the MAT administration of April. 1980 served as the achievement criterion measures. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated for each of the criterions. Further details of the study follow under the headings of test evaluation questions. subjects. procedures. and analysis. Test Evaluation Questions The predictive validity study sought to test the following two hypotheses stated in narrative as well as symbolic forms. Hypothesis 2. Null Hypothesis: The correlation coefficient between the PRSD and the pre-test PSORT will not be greater than zero. Smbolicalky: H0 “012 = 0 population correlation coefficient PRSD pre-test PSORT Legend: 1 2 Alternate Hypothesis: The correlation coeffi- cient between the PRSD and the pre-test PSORT will be greater than zero. Symbolically: H2 ‘P12 > 0 population correlation coefficient PRSD pre-test PSORT Legend: H I) II II 59 6O Hypothesis 3. Null Hypothesis: The correlation coefficient between the PRSD and the post-test PSORT will not be greater than zero. Symbolically: Ho :p13 = 0 Legend: population correlation coefficient PRSD post—test PSORT 1 3 Alternate Hypothesis: The correlation coeffi- cient between the PRSD and the post- -test PSORT will be greater than zero. Legend: population correlation coefficient PRSD post-test PSORT ...; II II II Hypothesis 4. Null Hypothesis: The correlation coefficient between the PRSD and the MAT will not be greater than zero. Symbolically: H0 ‘/014 = 0 Legend: = population correlation coefficient 1 = PRSD 4 = MAT Alternate Hypothesis: The correlation coeffi- cient between the PRSD and the MAT will be greater than zero. Symbolically: Hg ':P14 > 0 Legend: = population correlation coefficient 1 = PRSD 4 = MAT Hypotheses 2. 3. and 4 were based on the assumption that school readiness are necessary to show success on later measures of school achievement. 61 Subjects A total of 396 Title I preschool pupils served as the sample for assessing the predictive validity of the PRSD. These subjects were screened for possible program partici- pation during the 1978-79 school year. Almost all subjects screened were four years old by December 1 and would not be five years old by December 2 in the year of their screening. Approximately 50% were females. See Appendix J for exact counts by sex and age. Racial ethnic background was highly minority with approxi- mately 5% being caucasion or white (see Appendix H). Almost all the children resided in Title I attendance area of the School District of the City of Saginaw where the large majority of low social economic status inhabitants of Saginaw live (see Appendix L for the latest available census data of this area). Approval for participation of subjects was obtained from both the School District of the City of Saginaw and the University Committee on Research Involving Human Sub— jects (see Appendix I for copies of both letters). Procedures The predictive validity study involved testing pupils with the PRSD and then testing them with the PSORT and MAT as criterion measures. The pupils were screened during September and October. 1978 using the PRSD. The 62 prekindergarten staff members responsible for the screen- ing attended a training session on the administration and scoring of the PRSD. The teachers were observed screening and any errors in administration were corrected. The results of the screening sessions were coded on a standard optical scannable answer sheet. These answer sheets were machine scored locally. The same pupils who remained in the prekindergarten program were then tested using the PSORT during October. 1978 (pre-test) and April. 1979 (post-test) as part of the Title I program evaluation activities. Prekindergarten staff members received training on how to administer the PSORT prior to pre-testing. The test administrators recorded the correctness of responses directly on answer sheets for both the pre- and post-tests. These answer sheets were machine scored locally for both test administra- tions. The pupils still remaining in the Saginaw Public Schools were tested during April. 1980 using the MAT as part of the scheduled testing program for kindergarteners. All kindergarten classroom teachers attended an hour long training session on how to administer the MAT which high- lighted the use of the test manual as a means to stan- dardized the testing session. Pupils marked directly on the answer booklet which were machine scored by the test publisher. 63 Analysis Hypotheses 2. 3. and 4 were tested in the following manner: Pearson product-moment correlations were com- puted between PRSD raw scores and the raw scores of the pre-test PSORT. post-test PSORT. and MAT. The Fisher r to z transformation. which assumes the (X. Y) joint events have a bivariate normal distribution in the population. was used to test for significance. The alpha level of signi— ficance chosen was .05. SUMMARY This chapter provided a description of the methods and procedures used to further develop and evaluate the Prekipdergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD). The study took place in Saginaw. Michigan. a mid-western industrial city of approximately 85.000. The School Dis- trict of the City of Saginaw's Title I Prekindergarten program served as the setting for the study. Both pre- kindergarten staff members and potential pupils served as subjects. Data from the 1978-79. 1979-80. and 1980-81 served as the basis for the three major developmental thrusts of the study - 1) determine rater reliability. 2) estimate construct validity. and 3) assess predictive validity. The PRSD. the Prekindergarten Saginaw Objec- tive Referenced Test (PSORT) and Metropolitan Achievement Egala (MAT) were described in some detail with reliability estimates for Saginaw Title I pupils of .761 and .909 offered for PSORT and MAT respectively. The rater reliability study consisted of raters scor- ing two videotaped testing sessions. A short training session was held prior to scoring two children on video- tape. Intra-class correlations were calculated. Also percent agreement of these raters were compared to the original rater and items identified as difficult to score during the scoring sessions. 64 secut coast the c trend inter cells level 65 The total set of the PRSD results from the three con- secutive school years mentioned above was employed in the construct validity study. This data set was used to study the construct validity of the items by means of a test for trend in ordered contingency tables. Chronological age intervals crossed with pass and fail on PRSD formed the cells for the ordered contingency table for each item. The level of significance was i = .05. In the predictive validity study the results of September and October. 1978 administration of the PRSD served as the test scores (or the X variable) to predict the criterion. The results of the PSORT administration of October. 1978 (pre-test) and April. 1979 (post-test) for the Title I Prekindergarten program plus the MAT adminis- tration of April. 1980 served as the achievement criterion measures. The Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi- cients were calculated for each of the criterions. To test whether these correlations were significantly dif- ferent than a zero correlation. a Fisher r to Z trans- formation was used. The level of significance was d~= .05. CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS In this chapter. the results of the developmental and evaluative methods employed on Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) data are presented and discussed. The chapter is divided into the following sections: relia- bility. construct validity. and predictive validity. These three sections are offered to shed some light upon the quality of measurement offered by the PRSD. The measure- ment instruments used in the study are referred to by their acronyms in the following text.1 1These instruments and their associated acronyms follow: the Metrppolitan Achievement Test (MAT). the Prekindergarten Readiness Screeninngevice (PRSD). and the Prekindergarten Saginaw Objective Referenced Test (PSORT). 66 RELIABIL;1§ Reliability estimates for psychological and educational tests can be thought of as a statistical index of measure- ment quality. While reliability is a necessary but not sufficient condition to judge the overall quality of a test. it is one estimate of quality most test constructors must consider early in the development process. The reliability estimate most appropriate for a par- ticular test depends on the type of test and its administra- tion and scoring environment. Performance checklists. like the PRSD. seem most prone to errors by raters in the proc- ess of evaluating performance. The group of raters must have a common frame of reference relevant to scoring behav- iors in response to checklist items. The intra-class correlation provided an estimate of rater reliability for both a single rater and a group of raters by an analysis of variance technique. This seems much more efficient and accurate technique than calculating Pearson correlations between each possible pair of raters. In the present study. 19 raters (teachers and parapro- fessionals) rated the behavior of two children by viewing a videotaped testing session of each. Table 4.1 shows the variances used to calculate the intra-class correlations for a single rater and the average for the group of raters. 67 68 TABLE 4.1. VARIANCES USED TO ESTIMATE INTRA-CLASS RELIABILITY OF PRSD. Degrees of Source Sum of Squares Freedom Variance From children 290.13 1 290.13 From raters 53.05 18 2.947 Remainder 19.37 18 1.076 Total 362.55 37 * *Variance not needed and not computed. The formula and calculation for the intra-class coeffi- cient for a single rater follows: F11 = Vc - Ve = 290.13 - (i.076 + 2.942) = .789 Vc + (k41) Ve 290.13 + (19-1)(1.076 + 2.947) where F11 = reliability of ratings for a single rater Vc = variance for children Ve = variance for rater + variance for remainder = variance for errorf k = number of raters 1 Even though the ratings for the rater reliability study were collected differently than typically employed (each rater rated each child rather than each rater rating only a unique set of children). still it is appropriate to calculate the error variance by including the rater variance along with the remainder variance. This inclusion is necessary since differences from rater to rater in general level of rating do lead to corresponding differences in selection. the between raters variance should be included in the error term. 69 The formula and calculation for the intra-class coef- ficient for the means of the two ratings for each child follows: rkk = vc - Ve = 290.13 - (1.076 + 2.947) = .973 -VE__— 290.13 where rkk = reliability for mean ratings from k raters Vc = variance for children Ve = variance for rater? + variance for remainder = variance for error k = number of raters Both obtained intra-class coefficients of .789 (for a single rater) and .973 (for an average of all the raters) were within the band defined previously as characteristic of consistent measurement. Guilford (1973. p. 92) stated that typically measurement procedures with reliability coeffi- cients between .70 to .98 tend to yield consistent results. It is noteworthy that the obtained coefficients are within this band. The rater reliability for a single person (r = .789) is the best estimate of reliability when only one individual will screen each child as is done in Saginaw. The rater reliability of the mean of all raters (r = .973) 1Even though the ratings for the rater reliability study were collected differently than typically employed (each rater rated each child rather than each rater rating only a unique set of children). still it is appropriate to calculate the error variance by including the rater variance along with the remainder variance. This inclusion is necessary since differences from rater to rater in general level of rating do lead to corresponding differences in selection. the between raters variance should be included in the error term. 70 is the best estimate of reliability when the same child will be screened by two or more persons. Thus each intra- 'class coefficient is more valid in one situation than another. The reader is reminded that other reliability esti~ mates (the Kuder Richardson-20 and split half reliabilities) will be presented in the construct validity section of this chapter. In addition. the percentage of raters agreeing with the original rater was used as a means to explore if any item tended toward fostering rater disagreement and thus incon- sistency in the measurement procedure. The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of raters in agreement (with the original rater by the total number of raters and multiplying this answer by 100. The comments made after the videotaped screening session were gathered on possible ways to improve the scoring and/or administrative consistency. Table 4.2 below summarizes this information on both pupils tested plus comments offered to making testing more uniform in the future. 71 TABLE 4.2. PERCENT AGREEMENT OF VIDEOTAPE RATERS T0 ORIGINAL RATER (N = 19). PRSD Percent Agreement Item Behavior Requested Comments Number Pupil A )Pupil B 1 Say age 94.7 68.4 2 Say name 100.0 94.7 3 Point to neck 100.0 100.0 4 Identify body part 100.0 100.0 5 Tell function of body part 94.7 100.0 6 Pick up same color 100.0 100.0 7 Pick up named color 94.7 100.0 8 Say color of object 78.9 100.0 9 Say color of object 100.0 100.0 10 Count to five 100.0 84.2 11 Give me four blocks 94. 7 100.0 12 Say number of blocks 94. 7 100.0 13 Pick up blocks 94. 7 100.0 14 Walk backwards 0.5 21.1 15 Carry out 3-part command 94. 7 84.2 16 Tell what books are for 94. 7 100.0 17 Draw cross given model 89 5 42.1 18 Hop after demonstrated 100. 0 100.0 Is hopping in place correct or is a forward hop only acceptable? 19 Throw ball five feet 100.0 100.0 Should you score first throw or allow multiple throws? 20 Point to shape like a 100.0 100.0 wheel 21 Point to shape like a 100.0 84.2 tent 22 Point to shape like a 100.0 100.0 stick 23 Tell which is bigger 94. 7 100.0 24 Draw diamond given model 52. 6 94.? Hard to demon- strate tracing around template. 25 Tell nursery rhyme. song. 10.5 100.0 Reword and sim- poem plify - Can you tell me a song or poem? 26 Say yellow jello 89.5 63.2 27 More than one word 5.3 94.7 M response 72 Percent agreements as shown in Table 4.2. ranged from 5.3% to 100.0% and 21.1% to 100.0% for pupils A and B respectively. If a standard of 75% is used for compari- son purposes for adequate rater agreement. a total of 23 out of 27 items (85.2%) had percent agreements above the 75% standard for both pupils rated. Only item 14 (walk back- wards) had both percent agreements below this standard (10.5 and 21.1 percent for pupils A and B respectively). The explanation of why item 14 tended toward such disagree- ment may come from one or both of two plausible explana- tions. The perspective of the videotape raters was some- what different than the original rater rating the child's live performance thus their view of the children's per- formance could have been responsible for the difference. The other explanation comes from the research of Horrocks and Schoonover (1968. pp. 447-448) that the more complex the behavior. the more difficult it was to operationally define and obtain high inter-rater reliability. During the three years of observing PRSD screening sessions. there was* evidence that the test administrators had trouble in demon- strating the behavior properly before asking the child to walk backwards. If the walking backwards was a difficult task for teachers. then a leniency error toward the children may have been evident in their rating behavior. A comparison of comments relating to scoring or administration problems and items with percent agreements 73 below the 75% standard was also undertaken. Of the four questions receiving comments. only items 24 (draw a diamond given model) and 25 (tell nursery rhyme. song. or poem) also received low ratings (of 52.6 and 10.5 percent respec- tively). The comments of clearer instructions on how to demonstrate the tracing of the diamond shape and simplify- ing the directions for requesting the child to tell a song or poem may make it easier for children to complete the PRSD tasks. This in turn may make it easier for the raters to score the items since objective standards for an accept- able response are provided. Without these modifications. some test administrators may be prone to resort to leniency because of their inability to provide the proper directions to the children being screened. Overall. the PRSD seems to provide consistent measure- ment with rater reliabilities of .789 for a single person and of .973 for an average over all raters. The single person estimated reliability is appropriate when only one rater will screen a child and the averageioverall raters' estimated reliability is appropriate when two or more persons will screen each child. The percent agreement with the original rater tentatively indicated a number of items where agreement was lacking. It was hypothesized that agreement was lacking because of one or both of the follow- ing explanations. The videotape quality in terms of per- spective. audio volume. and clarity may have caused some 74 of the disagreement because the original rater scored the live testing. The other explanation was that the lack of agreement could have resulted from observer leniency error due to the perception that either administration directions or scoring criteria were less than adequate for the chil- dren being screened to perform the task adequately and/or given credit for their attempts given the situation. Rater reliability as an index of measurement quality seems ade- quate to bring about consistent measurement generally. with a few items showing disagreement being the exceptions rather than the rule. CONSTRUCT VALIDITY The construct validity study explored one aspect of the readiness construct. namely the age progression of the percent passing each PRSD item. In other words. test results at the item level were checked against chrono- logical age to determine whether performance showed an improvement with advancing age. However. age progression of items is a necessary but not sufficient condition for proof of the readiness construct. The results are pro- vided as one element related to the nomological network related to the total construct of readiness. The screening data from the three school years of 1978 through 1981 were used to study the age progression of each item by means of a test for trend in ordered chi- square contingency tables. Chronological age intervals crossed with pass or fail on PRSD formed the cells for the ordered contingency table for each item. A test for linear trend (or more accurately termed test of monotonicity of a relationship) was calculated for each PRSD item to determine if the null form of the hypothe- sis should be rejected. In plain language. the null hypothesis was that no increase was shown in the percent of pupils passing an item at each progressively higher age interval. Hypothesis one is restated below in both narra- tive and symbolic forms. 75 76 Hypothesis 1. Null Hypothesis: No monotonically increasing relationship is shown by the proportion of pre- kindergarten subjects passing an item on the PRSD at each progressively higher chronological age interval. Symbolically: H0 8 P1 2 P2 2 P3 2 Pu Legend: Pk = proportion of pupils passing an item at a given chronological age interval k (where k = 1 repre— sents the youngest age interval) Alternate Hypothesis: A monotonically increas- ing relationship is shown by the prOportion of prekindergarten subjects passing an item on the PRSD at each progressively higher chronological age interval. ‘ SNEbOllcally‘ 31 8 P1 < P2 < P3 < P” Legend: Pk = proportion of pupils passing an item at a given chronological age interval k (where k = 1 repre- sents the youngest age interval) Appendix N presents the number and percent of the age groups passing each PRSD item. These data served as the information used in the test of linear trend. Table 4.3 below presents the results of the trend analysis. .- S-I\ 'I 77 mw pcmwofimmmoo poems .pCowoflmmmoo poemso on» we Cowpmasoamo one a“ oo>ao>£w coflpmuomo poop chandm on» we monsoon ouswfim Haves m ops“ o>fipfioom so: 0 map sous: cowpmfiuw> mo monsom some an Co>ww Cowvmfloommm mo pesosm o:e** . no . V Qt jg )mi) I I I I I I I I I I HNPO—H‘ mmn *mo om non to: on one mo a son two mm con *mm mm m eonomoomoo no nono . . . . . . . . . . I :ovocos Scum manppmaoa mmo oo n one on omo on n one mm mmo on m m n conmmoowoo can. eoo.mn oon. ono.mn moo. $03.0 Non. too.mm nmn. *oo.~m n no apnoncopocoe op ooa 0 mm“ 0 mu“ o mu“ o M“ o «no nn soon on sopH an sopH No goon nn aopH co oonpdnom> no moonoom o o o o o o o a o 0N. 4F HMfiOB omn ooo mm nun omm no own ooo co awn *no no son ooo m eonoooumoo no npno mmo. me. one. om.: one. m~.n one. on. moo. on.m m -ncopocoe eons ooopomooa sowmmmpmop mNH. *H0.NN Hod. ton.em mod. tmm.mm omH. tom.m: on”. tHN.¢m « mo hpwowsOPOQos on one no mg“ no mg“ no «do 0 MW“ 0 nnuw en aopH o sopH m aopH 5 Soon o soon so nonponom> mo ooonoom mod. tmh.mm mud. tam.mm «dd. tNa.mN mmH. tm©.mn omo. *«m.oH m Havoe sowmmoswop mo keno one. mn.o «no. os.m one. oo.n nee. om.~ one. mm.e N -neopoeoe zoom onoppooon sowmmouwms and. *Nw.mm 03H. *ao.om mm“. tmo.m~ med. tflm.Hm :00. *mm.m H mo zPHoHcovocoe ow man 0 Mn“ no mm“ 0 «av no moo .eo Nous m soon a aopH m aopH N eopH n soon so conpdnoo> co mooooom zo swan amms ammo xo mo mmousom men. emN.:n nnN. *mm.No :Nn. oom.No oNn. *NN.ON mnn. *No.mn m Hmpoe :owmmopwmu mo mpfio Hmo. 0N.n mno. m:.. moo. on.o mmo. mo.N NNo. so.n N -ncopocoe Boom ooopomooa Conmwmumou omo. omo.nn enN. eon.No con. omn.mn onn. eNN.mn Nan. omm.Nn n mo apnoncopoeoe op one 0 mm“ 0 mu. 0 mm. 0 man u muv mN aopH :N sown mN sown NN sown nN soon so nonponoo> mo mooooom one. eno.m Noo. sm.m Non. oom.mN own. *om.No own. *oo.om n nopoe .cowmmomwop mo hpwo mNo. Ne. mNo. em. moo. om.m one. so.n moo. Nm.N N -neopoooe Soho ooopoMQoo cofimmouwou who. tmn.m mmo. om.: mNH. tow.NN omH. tou.m: mma. tum.m: H mo hanowCopoCos op ese 0 man 0 mm“ 0 Nu“ o muv 0 Non oN aopH on soon on aopH Nn Soon on Soon we conpmnpm> no mooooom n.c.vcoov .m.: manna 79 A quick glance at Table 4.3 reveals that the same type of data was provided for each of the 27 items of the PRSD. It may be instructive if an explanation of how each tabled number for a particular item was calculated using the actual data as an example. Let item two be the example. The chi-square total value of 33.65 came from calculating the chi-square for the con- tingency table of item two formed by crossing the pass or fail status with the four age intervals. The contingency table of observed frequencies and marginal totals for item two is presented in Figure 4.1 below. Figure 4.1. Observed Frequencies for the Contingency Table of Item Two of the PRSD. Answer Age Group (Year-Month) Y1 Status . Total Y2 4-0 or less 4-1 to 4-3 4-4 to 4-6 4-7 or more Pass 202 216 234 251 903 Fail 153 155 110 83 501 Total 355 371 344 334 1.404 expected cell frequencies on the basis of the null hypothesis. The chi-square test also required the calculation of The null hypothesis was that age was independent of the ability to pass an item. i.e.. that the proportion of children 80 passing an item was the same regardless of whether they were 4 or less years. 4 years 1 month to 4 years 3 months. 4 years 4 months to 4 years 6 months. or 4 years 7 months or more old. To calculate the expected cell frequencies. the two marginal totals common to a cell of Figure 4.1 were multiplied by each other and then divided by the total number of children represented in the table. The contingency table of expected frequencies is presented in Figure 4.2 below. Figure 4.2. Expected Frequencies for the Contingency Table of Item Two of the PRSD. Age Group (Year-Month) Answer m Status *Otal 4-0 or less 4-1 to 4-3 4-4 to 4-6 4-7 or more Pass 228.32 238.61 221.25 214.82 903 Fail 126.68 132.39 122.75 119.18 501 Total 355 371 344 334 1.404 The degrees of freedom for an r x k contingency table such as Figures 4.1 or 4.2 was found by: df = (r-1)(k-1) = (2-1)(4-1) = 3 where r = number of rows (or classifications) k = number of columns (or groups) 81 The computation of chi-square for the data in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 is straightforward: r k 2 _ . . 2 X - E E- (013 'Eij) i-1 J-l E . is = (goz - 228.12)2 + (234 - 238.61)2 + ... 228.32 238.61 2 + (83 - 119.18) _ 119.18 ‘ 33°65 where X? = chi-square O = observed cell frequency E = estimated cell frequency To determine the significance of chi-square = 33.65 when df = 3. a chi-square table was consulted to determine that when df 3 and alpha = .05 that the observed value must be greater than chi-square = 7.82 to not accept the null hypothesis of no difference (indicated on Table 4.3 with an asterisk). Since the hypothesis of interest involves an ordered relationship of age (Y1) with respect to answering status on the PRSD (Y2). a test for trend in a contingency table must be undertaken since the chi-square test of independence is insensitive to ordering of the columns or rows. To initiate the computations. the ordered classes of rows and columns were quantified by coefficients associated with the linear components from a standard table of orthogonal poly- nominals. According to the figures of Table A-9 (Marascuilo and McSweeney. 1978. p. 498). the linear coefficient for 82 K = 2 are -1 and 1. while for K = 4 the linear coefficients are -3. -1. 1. 3. With these scaled values and the fre- quencies of Figure 4.1 the following were calculated: 2Y1 = 355(-3) * 371(-1) + 344(1) + 334(3) = -90 2Y12 = 355(-3)2 + 371(4)2 + 344(1)2 + 334(3)2 = 6.916 2Y2 = 903(-1) + 501(1) = -402 ZY22= 903(-1)2 + 501(1)2 = 1,404 zrlrz = 202(-3)(-1) + 216(-1)(-1) + 234 3) ( i153(-3)(1) + 155(-1)(1) + 110(1 —uzo ll" 1)(-1) + 251(-1) )(1) + 83(1)(3) With standardized linear regression theory. the slope of a regression line can be computed as: A N(ZY1Y2) - (2Y1)(ZY2) 1.404(-420) - (-9o)(-L:02) B ‘ Nona) - 112m 1.405(6917) - (-9o)2 ‘ - 0 0614510 At this point. the nonparametric test departs from the classical procedure. in that: 2 2 2 SY ' Y = i_;_i E. _ c2 2 is not used to compute SE33 since the determination of the partitioned chi-square component is made under the assumption that B = 0. When B = 0. it follows that SZYZ'Y1 = SZYZ. so that: 2 SE2 ”- = 8Y2 (N - 1) SZY1 For the observed data: 83 2 1 404 6 16 - - 0 - 1. o 1. 03 ' “'9253 U) ..4 ll 2 2 SY 11404(1,404) - (-402) _ 2 1.404(1.903) “ '9186 2 SE _ = .9186 - (g ‘ 0’ H.404 - mmzm " '0001329 A. Under large-sample theory. Z = B/SE(S~= O) has a sampling distribution that is approximately N(0. 1). so that z? = A Bg/SE2(§ = 0) is approximately chi-square with df = 1 degree of freedom. Thus the observed results: x 2 a ’32 = (..oou532 _._ 31 31 SE2(*' ) .0001329 ' B = 0 To determine the significance of chi-square = 31.31 when df = 1. a chi-square table was consulted to determine that when df = 1 and alpha = .05 that the observed value must be greater than 3.84 to not accept the null hypothesis of no age progression related to PRSD item two (31.31 on Table 4.3 for item two shows this significance with an asterisk). The variation due to departure from monotonicity of regression (age progression). as shown on Table 4.3 was cal- culated by simple subtraction. chi-square non-age progression = chi-square total - chi-square age progression = 33.65 - 31.31 = 2.34 df chi-square non-age progression = df chi-square total - df chi-square age progression = 3 - 1 = 2 84 To determine the significance of chi-square = 2.34 when df = 2. a chi-square table was consulted to determine that when df = 2 and alpha = .05 that the observed value must be greater than 5.99 to not accept the null hypothe- sis (2.34 appeared on Table 4.3 for item two and lacked an asterisk. which indicated the departure from age progression was not significant). Cramer's contingency coefficient (0) was also calcu- lated for inclusion in Table 4.3. The general formula to determine this measure of association follows: where L = the smaller of the number of rows or columns in the contingency table N = total number of observations that make up the contingency table ’Xz = chi-square The calculations for Cramer's contingency coefficient for item two as shown in Table 4.3 follows: C t ' 't = _31.31 _ due to mono on1c1 y f:404(2 _ 1) ,1u9 .041 C due to departure = Jfw 2.34 from monotonicity 1.404(2 _*17 33.65 C tO‘tal E'uou(2 _ 1‘)’ "' 0155 Since the chi-squares of item two for variations due to monotoncity of regression (linear function of age progression) 85 and the total were found to be significant. the Cramer con- tingency coefficients of .149 and .155 calculated from the significant chi-squares are also significant by definition. A review of all chi-square values for monotonicity in Table 4.3 indicates that the null hypothesis of no age pro- gression related to the pupil's ability to pass a PRSD item failed to be accepted for 25 of the 27 PRSD items (p‘< .05). Only the results of item 19 (throw ball five feet) and 27 '(more than one word responses) showed acceptance of the null hypothesis of no increasing ability to pass a PRSD item on the basis of age. The degree of association between age groups and the ability to pass PRSD items as shown by the Cramer coefficients ranged from .064 to .210 for the 25 items for which the alternate hypothesis was concluded. The aver- age Cramer coefficients were .136 and .129 for the 25 items showing significance and all 27 items respectively. Only one of the items (item 24 - draw diamond given model) had a Cramer coefficient equal to or greater than .20. The Cramer coefficients appear to be somewhat weak (average .129). however. it does seem there was some increase in the percentage of pupils passing PRSD as the next higher age groups were observed (as shown by the average proportion correct of .4046. .4492. .5136. and .5562 for each progres- sively higher age group over all items). It is true that the measure of dependence is small when compared with the possibility of total dependence. but it is large when com- pared with the possibility of no dependence. 86 There are at least two possible reasons. why the associa- tion shown by the Cramer coefficients appeared smaller than they could be under other circumstances. First.the Cramer coefficient is not directly comparable to the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. Conover (1971. p. 177) notes that in general the Cramer coefficient has the desirable feature of being between 0 and 1.0 at all times like the Pearson coefficient. but it has the undesirable feature of depending on the number of rows and columns for its interpre- tation. The larger the number of rows and columns are. the larger chi-square in the equation for the Cramer coefficient tends to be. and division by (L - 1) only partially offsets this tendency. Thus judgments about Size of the association cannot be tied directly to criteria used for judgments about Pearson product moment correlation coefficients. With a contingency table of 2 by 4 cells. like those used for the PRSD items. the size of the Cramer coefficient is limited to values less than one. which is unlike the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. Secondly. the age range used in the independent variable limited the variation in one or both of the varia- bles. As a general rule. the smaller the range in both the independent and dependent variable. the smaller the numerical values of a measure of association. other things being equal. Appendix G. which shows norms reported by other researchers for items the same as. or similar to. 87 the PRSD items. shows most item norms spanning 6 to 12 or more months rather than the 3 month interval used in this study. It may be that the rate of development using 3 month intervals is too variable to define norms for any group of children more precisely and obtain strong measures of asso- ciation. Overall. this research does tend to lend some support to the age progression of PRSD items. Another portion of the construct validity study sought to use the Cramer coefficients as partial data to decide whether age group or total group percentile norms should be developed. The supposition was that each PRSD item alone might show enough association to support the age progression of items. while the association of the total score to age might not be large enough to warrant the calculation of separate group norms by age. The decision rule as stated in Chapter 3 that embodies the above logic follows. If the majority of Cramer's con- tingency coefficients were .20 or greater then separate percentiles by age group would be calculated. If the majority of Cramer's contingency coefficients were below .20. then a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient would be calcu- lated for the association of chronological age ... and total PRSD raw score. If this correlation was .20 or greater then separate percentiles would be calculated for each group. on the other hand. if the correlation was less than .20 then only percentiles for the total group would be calculated. 88 Table 4.3 shows that only one Cramer contingency coef- ficient was equal to or greater than .20. Following the decision rule stated in the last paragraph. a Pearson corre- lation coefficient between age and total PRSD score was calculated and the results are reported in Table 4.4 below. TABLE 4.4. SAMPLE SIZE. MEANS. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR AGE AND PRSD TOTAL SCORE. AND THE PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE VARIABLES. =3===_ __ Correlation 95% Variable N X SD Coefficient Confidence rxy Interval Age 1.404 3.90 0.37 .161 .122 f_rxy f .198 PRSD Score 1.404 12.94 5.18 Table 4.4 shows the correlation coefficient to be .161 between age and PRSD score. The 95% confidence interval constructed around the correlation coefficient by means of a Fisher r to Z to r transformation evidenced that the true value of the coefficients ranges from .122 to .198. Since the confidence interval does not include a value equal to or greater than .20 (as stated in the previously stated deci- sion rule). a percentile table for all pupils irrespective of age was calculated and is presented in Table 4.5 below. 89 TABLE 4.5. RAW SCORE TO PERCENTILE CONVERSION TABLE FOR PRSD (N=1415). PRSQpRaw Score Freguency Percentile 27 1 99 26 2 99 25 5 99 24 17 99 23 19 98 22 19 96 21 29 95 20 37 92 19 , 59 69 18 92 83 17 85 77 16 97 71 15 94 64 14 118 57 13 110 48 12 97 41 11 110 34 10 65 28 9 83 22 8 56 18 7 65 13 6 41 10 5 32 7 4 25 5 3 12 4 2 12 3 1 4 2 0 29 1 90 The construct validity data set was also used to cal- culate two estimates of reliability for the PRSD. The Kuder- Richardson formula 20 was calculated and its result is given in Table 4.6 below along with a statistical description of the sample used for the calculations. TABLE 4.6. KUDER-RICHARDSON 20 RELIABILITY FOR THE PRSD AND ASSOCIATED DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 0F SAMPLE SIZE. MEAN. STANDARD DEVIATION. AND STANDARD ERROR. W Kuder-Richardson 20 .— Reliability N X SD SE .820 1.415 12.00 5.12 2.17 a=============================================== The Kuder-Richardson 20 estimate of consistency was .820 as shown in Table 4.6. The standard error of measure- ment using the Kuder-Richardson 20 reliability was 2.17. The second estimate of reliability calculated was the odd-even split-half variety corrected by the Spearman Brown prophecy formula. Both the uncorrected and corrected esti- mates of the split-half reliability are shown in Table 4.7 below. 91 TABLE 4.7. SAMPLE SIZE. MEANS. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE ODD AND EVEN HALVES OF THE PRSD. AND PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS UNCORRECTED FOR LENGTH AND CORRECTED FOR LENGTH BY MEANS OF THE SPEARMAN BROWN PROPHECY FORMULA. {I l Correlation Coefficients >fl Test Halves N SD Uncorrected Corrected for for Length Length Odd items 1:415 6-41 2-63 Even items 1.415 6-53 2:89 E — — 0755 0860 Table 4.7 shows the split-half reliability to be .755 when left uncorrected for shortening the test by approxi- mately half and the slight difference in the length of halves (12 items even and 13 items odd). The split-half reliability when corrected using the Spearman Brown prophecy formula was .860. Overall. the construct validity study found that age progression as one element related to the readiness con- struct. did exist on the basis of individual PRSD items. Cramer contingency coefficients for the linear (or mono- tonically increasing) portion of the chi-square values ranged from .064 to .210 for 25 of the 27 items showing signifi- cance. The degree of association was judged to be minor but suggestive of age progression of PRSD items for two reasons. First. it was noted that the Cramer coefficients are somewhat stronger than equal sized Pearson coefficients 92 because Cramer coefficients can reach unity only if the contingency tables are infinite (in this study they were 2 x 4). Second. the age range of 3 months used on the independent variable of age limited the variation in one or both of the variables and thus caused the degree of association to be smaller. The degree of linear associa- tion between age and score status on each item would have been considerably different if a larger overall age span of subjects screened could have been included for study. Another portion of the study using the Cramer coef- ficients of linear trend and a Pearson coefficient between age and total score (r = .161) in conjunction with an a priori decision rule. resulted in the construction of total group rather than age group percentile norms. The decision was reached on the basis of weak Cramer coefficients for linear trends for most items and a weak Pearson coefficient between age and total score. The lack of sufficient asso- ciation between age and either score status on each item or total score seemed to indicate that only total group norms would be useful for the age span included in this study. The last portion of the construct validity study con- cerned the estimation of reliability in terms of internal consistency. Estimates of .820. .755. and .860 were cal- culated for Kuder-Richardson 20. odd-even split half uncorrected. and odd-even split half corrected reliabilities 93 respectively. In terms of internal consistency of PRSD items. the test has good reliability. PREDICT IVE VALIDITY Construct validity covered in the past section and pre- dictive validity the present topic have one. if not more. characteristics in common. Both these types of validity are classified as derived validity. as opposed to primary (or direct) validity. Findings related to primary validity require actual examination of the test to make sure its operational definition of the trait being measured is faith- fully and accurately being followed. The derived (or secon- dary) type of validity as explored in this research is satis- fied to the extent that the scores of the PRSD correlate with criterion scores that possess direct. primary validity. Generally predictive validity is concerned with the :relation of test scores to measures on a criterion based on performance at some later time. The criterion of interest it: this research was school achievement. Pearson product mcnnent correlation coefficients were calculated to determine luovv well one can predict school achievement (as measured by prwe-test PSORT. post-test PSORT and MAT for hypotheses 2. 3. sand 4. respectively) from PRSD scores. These three hypotheses are formally restated below with a presentation of"t11e results following each. 94 95 Hypothesis 2. Null Hypothesis: The correlation coefficient between the PRSD and the pre-test PSORT will not be greater than zero. Symbol1cally: Ho :‘Aaz = 0 Legend: )0 = population correlation coefficient 1 = PRSD 2 = pre-test PSORT Alternate Hypothesis: The correlation coeffi- cient between the PRSD and the pre-test PSORT will be greater than zero. Smbolically: H2 '1912 > 0 Legend: /0 = population correlation coefficient 1 = PRSD 2 = pre-test PSORT This correlation coefficient with its associated 95% confidence interval for judging significance and other descriptive statistics of both variables involved in hypothe- sis 2 are given in Table 4.8 below. 96 TABLE 4.8. SAMPLE SIZE. MEANS. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE RESULTS OF PRSD AND PRE-TEST PSORT ADMINISTRATIONS. AND THEIR PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION WITH 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL. Prek Pupil . . - r 95% Confidence Variables giiignfl- N X SD xy Interval Prekindepgarten Reagi- es Screeni Device Title I 396 13.08 5.02 (PRSD)--Fall. 1978 Prekindergarten Saginaw Ob’ec ive Reference - T I (PSORT --Fall. Title I 396 11.10 4.96 1978 =¥====__a—— .487* .409 _<_'”xy 5 .558 i 'p <.05. A study of Table 4.8 above reveals that the correla- tion between PRSD and the pre-test PSORT was significantly greater than zero. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for the 396 paired observations was .487 with an associated 95% confidence interval of .409 through .550 using Fisher's r to Z to r transformation. Thus on the basis of this sample of 396 paired observations the true correla- tion lies somewhere between .409 through .558 with 95% confi- dence. If this is true. then by squaring the limits of the interval and multiplying by 100 an estimate of the percent of variance the PRSD scores explain on the basis of the pre- test PSORT criterion scores can be obtained. Thus somewhere between 16.7 to 31.1% of the variance was shared in common 97 with the PRSD and pre-test PSORT scores. This level of shared variance is only suggestive that predictive validity exists. it was hoped that a moderate or larger amount of shared variance (50% or more) would be observed. Hypothesis 3. Nullaflypothesis: The correlation coefficient between the PRSD and the post-test PSORT will not be greater than zero. Symbolically: H0 :/013 = 0 Legend: ,0 = pOpulation correlation coefficient 1 = PRSD 3 = post-test PSORT Alternate Hypothesis: The correlation coeffi- cient between the PRSD and the post-test PSORT will be greater than zero. .m._'____x S bollcall : H3 '/013 f 0 Legend: ,0 = population correlation coefficient 1 = PRSD 3 = post-test PSORT Descriptive statistics of both variables involved in hypothesis 3 and the calculated Pearson product moment correlation along with its associated 95% confidence inter- val are presented in Table 4.9 below. 98 TABLE 4.9. SAMPLE SIZE. MEANS. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE RESULTS OF PRSD AND POST-TEST PSORT ADMINISTRATIONS. AND THEIR PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION WITH 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL. Prek Pupil . . . . —- r 95% Confidence Variables giiighfl- N X SD xy Interval Prekindergarten Readi- neaa Sgrgening Device Title I 349 13.25 5.10 (PRSD --Fall. 1978 . 3383* .306 g rxy g .471 Wiggins! W, Title I 349 24.65 4.91. 1979 . #fi — *p < .05. The correlation between the PRSD and the post-test PSORT was significantly greater than zero (Table 4.9). The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for the 349 paired observations was .383 with an associated 95% confidence inter- val of .306 through .471 using Fisher's r to Z to r transfor- mation. Thus the true correlation lies somewhere between .306 through .471 with 95% confidence. Again estimating the shared variance in terms of a percentage. the range of explained variances falls somewhere between 9.4% and 22.2% for the association between PRSD and post-test PSORT scores. The reduced amount of shared variance between pre- and post- test PSORT relative to PRSD is probably due to the impact of the prekindergarten program in producing a negatively 99 skewed distribution of scores. Since the aim of the program was to foster the attainment of minimum skills stated in behavioral objective form. any students with skill levels above the stated minimums would reach the ceiling of the test and be unable to display the full breadth of their abilities. In other words. the success of the program as measured by the PSORT placed limits on the range of scores by its very minimum nature and thus it would be reasonable to expect a somewhat weaker correlation. Before proceeding to hypothesis 4. the data from hypothesis 2 and 3 can be used to calculate a partial cor- relation between the PRSD and the post-test PSORT while holding the pre-test PSORT constant. The partial correla- tion is most valuable when the influences of one variable (initial differences on the pre-test PSORT) are to be ruled out upon the criterion behavior (the post-test PSORT) to clarify the role of the remaining variable (the PRSD). Thus the motivation for calculating the partial correla- tion was to determine the differential prediction of the PRSD on post-test PSORT gain scores while holding the pre- test PSORT score level constant. Table 4.10 below presents the three Pearson product moment correlations needed for calculations and the resulting partial correlation. 100 .QBQH .HHMQIIEIOWQ HO.“ wHOhPCOO COHPNHIHHOO HNHULHNQ IS? N .m.: canoe cw covsmmmun seconds soapmupmwswscm some mswpsmnnsmomm mo mowpmfipmpm o>wpsfipomonn mo. V Qt swam. comm. tmmm. o~.m mm.mH men when .Hammuuammm .. :: *mNe. mm.e sn.nn men mama .Hnoa--9moma oaon .monpam--amoma mean .nnda--amoma noson .monaam--emomo m o H.n m H u m > mm m z moanmwum> Nsofivmaouuoo Hmfiphmm meowpmaouuoo psosos posoonm somuoom fill .mazmHonmmoo ZOHBmQ Qm 0 Legend: )0 = population correlation coefficient 1 = PRSD 4 = MAT The Pearson correlation coefficients central to hypothe- sis 4 with its associated 95% confidence intervals for the total plus two component groups are presented below in Table 4.11. TABLE 4.11. 102 SAMPLE SIZES. MEANS. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE RESULTS OF PRSD AND MAT ADMINISTRATIONS. AND THEIR PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS WITH 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR PUPIL CLASSIFICATIONS OF ALL PREKINDERGARTENERS AND ITS TWO COMPONENTS OF TITLE I AND NON- TITLE I 0R TITLE I DROPOUTS. Variables Prek Pupil Classifi- tion >4 SD rxy 95% Confidence Interval Prekindergarten Reag’- ness Scree ' ev'ce (PRSD)--Fall. 1978 All Pre- kinder- garteners 346 13.20 5.00 Metropolitan Achieve- ment Test (MAT)-- Spring. 1980 All Pre- kinder- garteners 346 274.42 u4.24 .484* .410 f rxy < .559 Erekindergartea Reagi- ness Screening_Device (PRSD)--Fall. 1978 Title I 270 13.10 4.92 o 't Achieve- ment_lest (MAT)-- Spring. 1980 Title I 270 273.82 45.34 .462* .365 firxy < .599 E 1. 1 ! R 1'- e s Screenin Device (PRSD)--Fall. 1978 Non- Title I or Title I Dropout 76 13-55 5.30 Metropolitan Achieve- ment Test (MAT)-~ Spring. 1980 *p < .05. Non- Title I or Title I Dropout 76 276.55 140061" .57u* .412 _ .701 103 The correlations between the PRSD and the MAT were significantly greater than zero (Table 4.11). The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for all 346 pupils. 270 Title I participants. and 76 non-participants were .484. .462. and .574 respectively. The three correlations had associated 95% confidence intervals resulting from Fisher's r to Z to r transformations of .410 through .559. .365 through .549. and .412 through .701 respectively. The range of explained variance on MAT by use of PRSD scores ranged from between 16.8% through 31.2%. 13.3% through 30.1%. and 17.0% through 49.1% for all‘pupils. Title I participants. and non-participants respectively. The overlapping nature of the correlations and the percent of variance accounted for leads to the conclusion that there was little difference on the basis of the observed sample between participants and non-participants. The obtained correlations between PRSD scores and MAT scores (received approximately 21 months later) support the supposition that some predictive validity exists. In the best of all possible worlds. it would have been hoped that observed correlations would have been greater than .7 with at least 50% shared variance. Overall. the predictive validity study found evidence that a weak to moderate level of association existed between PRSD scores and measures of later school achievement (pre- test PSORT. post-test PSORT. and MAT). The obtained Pearson product moment correlations and their associated 95% 104 confidence intervals between the PRSD scores and these criterions follow: pre-test PSORT. r = .487 with interval of .409 through .558: post-test PSORT. r = .383 with inter- val of .306 through .471: and MAT. r = .484 with interval of .410 through .559. Thus all correlations were signifi- cantly greater than zero (p < .05). Even considering that the full range of the confi- dence interval. these correlations fell short of a hOped for coefficient of .7 or greater. or the equivalent of 50% or more shared variance. This may be too high of a stan- dard when considering'the multitude of problems (such as distractability. shyness. negativism. and other factors interfering with rapport and test administration) asso- ciated'with accurate measurement of prekindergarten level children (Anastasi, 1970. p. 473). Beyond this consideration there were at least three other possible explanations that could account for the low correlations. First. the short length of the PRSD (27 items) played a role in reducing the size of the coeffi- cients obtained. The focus of this test development and evaluation effort has been to produce a short test. It is generally recognized that an abbreviated form of a test is expected to have a lower correlation coefficient than the longer form of the same test. Another factor was the Title I prekindergarten program. This program may have reduced the variability of the subjects 105 beyond what it might have been without such a program. It is generally recognized that all correlation coefficients are affected by a restriction in range. A reduction of the range of scores by using a homogeneous sample can result in a misleadingly low correlation coefficient. The results of the correlation of PRSD scores with MAT scores on the non-participants and dropout group is suggestive that higher correlations are possible. However. the mixed type of grouping (non-participants and partial participants) and the small number of children (N = 76) makes the results very speculative. Even within the participant group the heterogeneity of the possible participants may be further lacking due to the program leadership. The program super- visor has also been criticized a number of times for not trying harder to include even lower scoring students (on the basis of PRSD scores) into the Title I program by fail- ing to conduct a more thorough recruitment program for participants. The other explanation deals with a restriction of the range of differences in scores on the criterion. The post- test PSORT compared with the pre-test PSORT reflects this restriction in range. The PSORT was already described as a very program specific test in sc0pe and thus limited by the curriculum of the program. The PSORT was further limited by its objective referenced nature to objectives usually attainable by the large majority of the pupils after 106 participating nine months in the program. Most pupils have been able to perform very well at the end of the program. In other words. the success of the prOgram as measured by the PSORT brought about a negatively skewed distribution. Thus it would be reasonable to expect the PRSD to show a weaker correlation with the post-test PSORT than the pre- test PSORT. SUMMARY Table 4.12 below gives a synopsis of the foregoing‘ results by test evaluation issue. 107 Inc"? .3-..- H h 1...: V V 90' ... 1 "Ned u)" .‘ - .. '9 I .11 : 1 '7 In 1.1 : 4 TABLE 4.12. SYNOPSIS 0F TEST EVALUATION ISSUES IN QUESTION OR HYPOTHESIS FORM ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED FINDINGS. Test Evaluation Issues1 Findings What is the estimated rater reliability of the PRSD? Intra-class correlation for an indi- vidual (r = .789) and the average across 19 raters (r = .973) is within the range of reliability felt to produce consistent results according to Guilford (1973. p. 72). Hypothesis 1 Ho ’ P1.3 P2 2 P3 3 P4 Fail to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that a monotonically increas- ing relationship is shown in the propor- tion of prekindergarten subjects on 25 of 27 items of the PRSD at each progressively higher chronological age interval (p4 .05). Hypothesis 2 H0 ‘/012 = O H18P12>O Fail to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that the correlation coeffi- cient between the PRSD and the pre- test PSORT is greater than zero (p‘<.-05). Hypothesis 3 H1 3’013 = 0 H1 3/013 > O Fail to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that the correlation coeffi- cient between the PRSD and the post- test PSORT is greater than zero (p:< .05). Hypothesis 4 Fail to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that the correlation coeffi- H0 glol4 = O cient between the PRSD and the MAT H1 :falu > O is greater than zero (pg; .05). =7 r 1 Legend for hypotheses: Pk = proportion of pupils passing an item at a given chronological age interval k (where k PRSD f0 1 2 3 L: MAT = 1 represents the youngest age) population correlation coefficient pre-test PSORT post-test PSORT A review of Table 4.12 indicates that consistent results can be obtained on the basis of the observed reliability and that almost all the null hypotheses were not accepted with the exception of a couple of instances for hypothesis one. The test evaluation question involving rater reliability showed intra-class correlations within or greater than the range Guilford (1973. p. 72) termed as indicative of con- sistent results. Specifically. if one rater was to screen each pupil (but not the same rater for each Child) then the intra-class correlation of .789 provides the best estimate of reliability using the PRSD with similarly trained raters. On the other hand. if two or more raters were to screen I each child. then the intra-class correlation of .973 pro- vided the best estimate of reliability using the PRSD with similarly trained raters. The results related to hypothesis one testify that the null hypothesis of no age progression between scoring status on each PRSD item and age group had to be rejected for 25 of the 27 items (p < .05). Overall. the construct validity study found that age progression. as one element related to the readiness construct. did exist on the basis of individual PRSD items. The remaining three hypotheses dealt with the predic- tive validity study. The outcomes of hypotheses two. three. and four witnessed that a correlation in excess of zero did exist. The 95% confidence intervals around the obtained 110 correlations showed that the coefficients of PRSD's associa- tion to the criterions ranged from .409 through .558. .306 through .471. and .410 through .559 for pre-test PSORT. post-test PSORT. and MAT respectively. This indicates that with like subjects that PRSD's shows weak to moderate pre- dictive associations to the criterions. CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter. the entire study of the further devel- opment and evaluation of the Prekindergarten Readiness Screening Device (PRSD) is summarized,including the results. Additional sections of this chapter contain discussion con- cerning the results. conclusions. and suggestions for future research. The three measurement instruments used in the. study are referred to by their acronyms in the following text.1 1These instruments and their associated acronyms follow: the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT). the Prekindergarten Readiness Sceenipg Device (PRSD). and the Prekindergarten Saginaw Opjective Referenced Test (PSORT). 111 I: Hr Pu 3o .1 01.. m U ”.7 VJJ fl—v +8 ’2 .171 r...e I "9893: up “9"" SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to further develop and evaluate a teacher administered measurement instrument for screening pupils for prekindergarten. The instrument would be used to identify children who. because of developmental and/or experiential problems.may be less able to meet the typical school expectations. Chapter 1 presented a review of inadequacies of available readiness and screen- ing instruments. Inadequacies included the lack of one or more of the following: norms. description of standardiza- tion sample. data on test reliability. and/or data on test validity. The specific purposes of this study were (1) to deter- mine rater reliability. (2) to explore the age progression of the percent passing each item of various age groups as one aspect of construct validity (and in the process develop appropriate percentile norms). and (3) to obtain estimates of predictive validity with a number of achievement instru- ments. The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 covered two seemingly unrelated tOpics - historical changes in early childhood education's mission and the error associated with checklists. The linkage between the topics was shown to be due to the compensatory educational nature of present- day preschool programs that require screening (sometimes by means of checklists) of potential participants. Early 112 113 childhood education as an organized enterprise in the United States has a short history. The first such endea- vors started in the 1920's as nursery schools attached to universities and colleges for research purposes. Their curriculum consisted of habit training and the promotion of physical health. Federal funding during the depression years and then again during World War II increased the number of nursery schools but changed little their cur— riculum other than an increase of an emphasis on socio- emotional growth in the 1940's.‘ During the 1960's. a com- bination of academic and socio-political forces finally lead to massive federal funding of compensatory education preschool programs designed to help prevent school failure among lower-lower-class children. The curriculum of these preschools emphasized cognitive growth and other abilities necessary for success in schools while drawing curriculum elements from the former nursery school movement. Present— day preschools enjoy a great variety in the composition of .curriculum, but for the most part focus upon the following four areas of development: socio-emotional. perceptual- motor. cognitive. and language. Any readiness screening. device for preschool education should be broad enough to cover these areas of child development. Screening for preschool may be accomplished by means of a checklist as one way to measure readiness skills. While checklists at first glance appeared to be a simple 114 measurement tool. errors of measurement were possible from a number of sources. The personality of the rater. the scale itself. the nature of the action (or trait). and the opportunity afforded the rater were all classified as common sources of error. Specific suggestions from the literature were offered in Chapter 2 to combat these errors under the broad headings of clearer definition of action rated and provisions for training raters. The School District of the City of Saginaw's Title I Prekindergarten program served as the setting for the study. Both prekindergarten staff members and potential pupils served as subjects. Data from one or more of the 1978-79. 1979-80. and 1980-81 school years served as the basis for the three major developmental thrusts of the study - 1) determine rater reliability. 2) estimate construct I validity. and 3) assess predictive validity. The PRSD. the PSORT. and MAT were described in Chapter 2 with reliability estimates of .761 and .909 offered for PSORT and MAT respec- tively. The rater reliability study consisted of raters scor- ing two videotaped testing sessions. A short training session was held prior to scoring two children on video- tape. Intra-class correlations were calculated. Also percent agreement of these raters were compared to the original rater and items identified as difficult to score during the scoring sessions. 115 The total set of the PRSD results from the three con- secutive school years mentioned above was employed in the construct validity study. This data set was used to study the construct validity of the items by means of a test for trend in ordered contingency tables. Chronological age intervals crossed with pass and fail on PRSD formed the cells for the ordered contingency table for each item. The level of significance was alpha = .05. Percentile norms either for the entire group or each age interval group were to be developed on the basis of decision rules relating to the results of the construct validity study. In the predictive validity study the results of September and October, 1978 administration of the PRSD served as the test scores (or the X variable) to predict the criterion. The results of the PSORT administration of October, 1978 (pre-test) and April, 1979 (post-test) for the Title I Prekindergarten program plus the MAT adminis- tration of April, 1980 served as the achievement criterion measures. The Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi- cients were calculated for each of the criterions. To test whether these correlations were significantly dif- ferent than a zero correlation, a Fisher r to Z transfor- mation was used. The level of significance was alpha = .05. 116 Reliability Study Results The reliability study sought to estimate the rater reliability for the entire test and explore the rater agree- ment to the original rater by item. The intra-class correla- tion for an individual rater was .789 and the average for the group of raters in this study was .973. The percent of agree- ment to the original rater ranged across items from 5.3 to 100% and 21.1 to 100% for pupils A and B respectively. Only item 14 (walks backward) obtained consistently low percent agreements of 10.5 and 21.1% for pupils A and B respectively. When a criterion of less than 75% percent agreement was used to single out the other remaining items where agree- ment was low, the following items were evident: 1 (say age) 68.4%, 1'7 (draw cross given model) 42.1%, 24 (draw diamond given model) 52.6%, 25 (tell nursery rhyme, song, or poem) 10.56, 26 (say yellow jello) 63.2%, and 27 (more than one word response) 5.3%. After the scoring session a discussion was held concerning particularly hard to score items and/or suggestions about improved procedures related to testing, only low scoring items 24 (draw diamond given model) 52.6% and 25 (tell nursery rhyme, song, or poem) 10.5% received comments. These comments were "It was hard to demonstrate tracing around template"(item 24) and "You should reword and simplify item 25 by asking, ‘Can you tell me a song or poem?'" 117 Construct Validity Study Results The construct validity study explored the age progression of the percent passing each PRSD item as one aspect of the readiness construct. This information along with Cramer's contingency coefficients for each item's linear component and a Pearson product moment correlation between total score and age was used to determine if age interval or entire group percentile norms should be developed. In addition, the same data set was used to estimate how consistent the PRSD items were in providing reliable measurement by means of the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula and the split-half reli- ability corrected by means of the Spearman Brown prophecy formula. The null hypothesis of no age progression in the per- cent passing each item was rejected for 25 of the 27 items Cp .m.m uumvm mEom::OZ com: mmBHms a mxuaqm mmBH=3 uumum meow .AJ L') m 1 3| uwmum maomucoz uumum oaom :mmz w¥u<++ T --One or two lines, no crossing, curved lines, scribble, no resemblance to cross (see illustrations below). X -§" )1, (Teacher places crayon and flash card into the box.) 148 :3. SAY, "Now we're going to get up again, it's kind of fun to get up and move around isn't it?" (Pause.) SAY, "Watch me and see what I'm doing." (Teacher demonstrates a one-foot hop by hopping at least six times.) SAY, "Now can you hop like I did? Try it." (Pause. Mark the answer sheet according to the acceptable responses given below.) Acceptable Response --Child hops on one foot for two or more hops. 19. (Teacher takes multi-colored ball from the box.) SAY, "Now you can stand right here. Do you see this pretty ball I have?" ' (Pause and hand the ball to the child.) SAY, "Would you hold that and I'm going to move over this way." (Teacher points to an area five feet from the child and walks to that spot.) SAY, "Now I'm all set so would you throw the ball to me." (Pause for the throw. Mark the answer sheet accord- ing to the acceptable response given below.) Acceptable Response --Child throws ball within reach of teacher (any type of throw is acceptable). SAY , SAY, 149 (Return the ball to the box and obtain the flash cards with the triangle, circle, and line. Position the cards in front of the child pointed at him/her from left to right in the following order and positioning: line pointing at the child, circle, and triangle with top angle pointed away from child.) "We have just a few more things to do. Now I'm going to Show you some other cards I have. I'm going to put these cards like this. And I'm going to ask you some questions about them. Are you ready?" (Pause fcr affirmative response.) "Can you Show me which one of these is most like a wheel?" (Pause for the child to indicate his/her response. Mark your answer sheet according to the acceptable response given below.) Acceptable Response --Circle. "Fine look at the cards again. This time tell me which one looks most like a tent?" (Pause for the child to indicate his/her response. Mark the answer sheet according to the acceptable response given below.) ' Acceptable Response --Triangle._ 22. SAY, 150 ”Look at the cards again. This time Show me which one looks most like a stick?" (Pause for the child to indicate his/her response. Mark the answer sheet according to the acceptable response given below. Teacher replaces cards in the box.) Acceptable Response --Line "Alright, now we have a question about how big things are. Which is bigger, a tree or a flower?" (Pause. Repeat child's response and mark the answer Sheet according to the acceptable response given below.) Acceptable Response —-A tree. 151 24. (Teacher should obtain the diamond template, crayon, and a piece of paper.) SAY, "I have something else I'd like you to do with a shape. I'm going to give you this piece of paper, shape, and a crayon." (The paper and template Should be laid lengthwise in front of the child as illustrated below.) <> SAY, "I want you to draw around the shape like this." (Teacher traces around the shape with his/her fingers while holding the template in place.) SAY, "Would you use the crayon to do that for me?" (Pause for the child to complete his tracing. Mark the answer sheet according to the acceptable response given below. Teacher returns the crayon and template to the box.) Acceptable Resppnse* --Outline of the diamond no more than 3/4 of an inch from the edge of the template. *The standard was determined by first measuring the devia- tions accepted as correct from previous test administrations, finding the mean of these deviations and, finally, dividing the mean by one-half and adding it to the mean. This standard closely matches those quoted by other school readiness researchers. 25. SAY, SAY, SAY, 1S2 ,/ "Now I'd like you to do something for me. This is going to be lots of fun. Do you have a favorite nursery rhyme, poem, or song?" (Pause for the answer. After determining which rhyme, poem, or song, if any, proceed. If child does not know one proceed to next question.) "Could you tell me that nursery rhyme or song?" (Pause for child's reSponse.) "Is there any more?" (Pause for child's response. Mark the answer sheet according to the acceptable response given below.) Acceptable Response --Child correctly recites at least 2 complete lines of rhyme, poem, or song. "Oh. I liked the way you said that. I have one more thing I'd like you to say and it sounds funny. Can you say yellow jello?" (Pause. Mark the ansWer sheet according to the acceptable response given below.) Acceptable Response --Child must pronounce the 1 and y clearly. 27. SAY, 153 (Score whether the child tended to engage in conver- sation-like responses during the testing session. Mark the answer sheet according to the acceptable response given below.) Acceptable Response --Child responded to questions with more than just one word responses to a clear majority of the items requiring a verbal response. This item is scored as either correct (A) or incorrect (B). "Well you did a very nice job. In fact, you have done such a good job for me I have a little surprise for you. (Teacher hands the child a surprise. e.g..CandY. ring, picture, etc. Be sure all items have been recorded and identifying information is complete.) OCIAHIA_ msm.m asm msm ess «mm msm so: mam Sam NAN 0mm AH: was 0mm Nam ABA 40: msm mm; mam Nam ssm can 4mm Amm Asa man a a 283.:sz A - as mm on s; cm s: A; - ssm a so as p: cm a: no as . ago cm om ma s: a: :; ma A; u osm . mm A: 2A :4 ma «A is - an“ AA mm «A RN mm an m; on om mam s o: o: a; :o as so so sfi smz :A am As ms 2: a; s; as my .x; .a Am 3: m: A; A; an a; an csm pa mm on A“ . N: Am a: a. u SSA 0H am an Sm AN on cm :a - can .s mm s; as :m as is A; - HA: . so as :0 Ho 52 AA as an cam *mm mm as am mm sw ow an . ens - AA so on «a as. mm is c: Ame s Am mm cm Am mm _ as ;H . sea n m; mm o; so am up as mm mm: : mm Hm am a: a; c; m: . n mwm an e: as aw mm sm so so an :ss - A: no no Sm mm am so . mam c- mo . no so as ms as aw n Nam an on mm SA on :m mm so . - Asa +H; m: A; A; m Am no a: me am: mm 4m mm m; :m an m: cm a 4mm SH so so as m2 so as we on mam a mu m: o: A; An Hm m; Am :Hm mm on no so Nu :m c; mm mm ssm .scm o m s m m H .mzx isms; sags? osma .om :zxzaaimn - icznzsnzu: Sesassio >2<92i=s4s scczum ye: zazdcem .H.Q mqmmv: aoqcccz swan: .z Loucfigbcxox composx hoaasoo o«~4_mz .3 4 ,J CITY OF 332? :Z“L; =_FZCK7 -v--;v Edith Eaillie 3 Sculter 7 Emerson - Fueroringer 5 I. Eal y 2 Ranciey 3 weavenrich lO Peri? - ?o gnton - Jerome 11 c hes - Ee.“ton 2 “orgiellow - Long52reet - C. “33715 2 Merrill Parv 5 3. “-ller 9 .. Moore o Morley - Potter 2 J. Fouse 3 Salina - South Elem. - Stone 7 Esther Elem. lO Zilwaukee _9 Total 93 Arthur Hill St Saginaw High __2 Total 63 Arthur Eddy Central Junior North Intermed. South Intermed. vetoer Junior \uw U‘l—‘WI 'V) Total 78 Continuation - Killet Center 2 Eclland Ed. Cent. - Total 2 Grand Total 23C to \nmko (LDMOJ-J C) I" «J IwHOmxthML) [3’ L...) :4\ M m ()‘wwuu \Jl u:\.' U t—‘t‘mw O~M\ot'\n U1 F4 \l M H \A.’ N L" w [7‘0 ’4 U1 (1) Us) TABLE D.2. fi'cm:'nm "sffi'!’ '- l '- ‘ I ..n..-n- C. .155 U“’a ; hfn‘v 53151 ‘YF'STT ‘1‘. ...-J- .- up: 17‘! H H!" I I H Mb) I |O\f\)'\)l I \O ||\0 I-J Iii-4| ob -V. nu,- uh. v ' T“ “:3 “WT;;. O U. 'oq- -‘ c 9 f5 HAD Pan Iv 193 l? 2 J 52 153 1292 150 101 251 12 35 91 158 336 25 \J.’ w ,4 \O “\J F0 ETHITIC f\) va ‘Jl-JM ‘\()U\CDU1F-‘ \rii h) mm 0\E M .4 ..1 '\) )JMO w‘ob) (.1) \p \0 mu.» K‘ (D {-4 |-’ C) (1) )4 g) \_;) }J R) VJ \Il |>-1 [1' (Y \A) .J 0. U. U - (p L18 '7 -. 1),-13 q ,- " — - ‘ .156 ers~ .ca :szeze; ~. A. . ad >x<fi_._:n . icznzsztez Sa_c_+s..:x:=a. .m .Q @539 :5 Crlhdldd 5.1.2.5.?" oily... 2.2.2: so: :23. .33... ...._........:tx .3233“ D. .5273: 0.. ”Ex; 27:3"... «A 3.x: 9:3: "3:..__.:._ x... mb::c:sn soo: oocscao: :owscczc: qucocn not:.oca choa :o_oc::c: _:.c::: + .ESLEOLL boost—CE: >752 3:3 .r-....Lq..x.:,.._o___x .2. .5293012. .3...” n....::.:.fi.. 2 m 7:. a... 3:: C : 2:. :5. :_ Loser. RA; a 597.37. A: 9.53: ... Ca 1:21.... A: LMJZZ \LM 03:3: ._... c~« - 3. Arm; .anroz. as tosszs ...Iuw mm. ovogfricoj :m >623: m :OaLEOz SM $12.53.— ... PA pica. .2553: .2. 22.3351 3: . 3:57...2:o.. 3m comatosaoozm :bzom Hm A2~p:d: ax 32:21 Om vbaqposcvacm no.5: a: air: .:+ an co..€.:o: oo coficcp ywpszou ma Loxcapccozz mo »o_s: .: .3 .353 .55.; 3 :on.:........ on :onuvsz m: :3: Escapism 2 .3533: SM REES... 3mm 24.: .3295 Tu. 33:3: mm. 3:23: 52:23:”? _.5...~.c..s::m_ c3??? §<.__.,=.m.i..._.:.,_ 75:.<3::u._ .2133. r. Eiséjzsigx122; $75.3: Espresso: 43.3.2: or: .3; 232:..5 . wmmhmcr no: 34.: p.533 .59: ...: ...:n hocvamicqz as; 2:; :o co..:......w.~ 3 533:3 122%.: mm sofa: ::_o~.ba:..c...i 2523: C: Loscur 5.2.925; an. _ E 3.533%. an: m.?.& 13o... >.Ls.t:_..._:_u._ amc.m Hand? :2“: ch::: popczm .3 Crisps... .. Extras; :3....Zmiocigunci son; 4339 32:2... :3: 35: ..ET. School Date Number preschoolers APPENDIX E TITLE I PREKINDERGARTEN ACTIVITY OBsoRVATION CHECKLIST 1979-80 Observer's Name Length of Observation Check if Activity Occurred 4 n‘ . o . P599u~~ During Observation Period ‘_ A-“ ve- - o o “bier“l“ Type or Act1V1ty* Rererent (J) Example Behavior Modification Tech- . niques** ' ’ Interest Centers** 13 Cross Mo:or Coordination** lO Eye-Hand Coordina.ion (Gross and Fine Moror and Manipulative)** 1 Properties of Objects; i.e., shape, color, hard- ness (five senses) *Refer to ES”% Title I Pre-Schcol Examples of Pre-School Activities Sheet for a detailed enplapation of the types of activities. *‘These iCfilVltie= pl‘s some aspect of work on ohvsicsl knowledce should be part 0: the call" classroom activity. 158 OH .'I‘ I. U fl {9 (l. W H $2 330’!) (D Check if Activity Occurred During Observation Period H () Iype of ACtivity* :5 P' r? G) (J) Example Rules of Behavior (school and traffic) IU Social Knowledge (i.e., work roles)** (U Grouping and Pegrouping (1.9., Classification) .1» Transitive Relations (i.e., length,-height, weight, shades, hardness) Conservation of Numbers by One-to-One Comparison (i.e., ° ' matching, pouring, getting coats, rearranging collec- tions) Linear Order (i.e., straight lines, counting) Parts of a Whole '4 l\) Copying Specific Shapes (i.e., cutting, pantomine, d raving ) c n of the types of ac -.u‘- 159 Check if Activity Occurred A . .. . . . ProuLC? During Observation Period ObJeCtlve Type of Activity* Referent (J) Example ll Temporal Ordering of Events Use of Body to Represent an Object Use of Objects to Represent Other Objects Human Utterance Which Represent Objects Use of Three-Dimensional Model to Represent Object Two-Dimensional Representa- tion of Objects in Drawing 14-15 Record of Parental Partici- pation Being Maintained l ‘— *Refer to ESEA Title I Pre-School Examples of Pre-School Activities Sheet for a detailed explanation of the types of activities. 160 (Key for Classroom Activity Observation Checklist) ESEA TITLE I-— PRE—SCHCOL Examples of Pre—School Activities According to Product and Process Objectives Type of Activity Activity Examples Behavior Modification Gross Motor Coor- dination (large body movements, climbing, walk- ing, rolling) Fine Motor Activi- ties-~Eye-Hand Coordination (use of classroom'tools and materials-- cutting, pasting, tearing) -One-to-one relationship with an adult -Seeking adults as resources ~Consistent classroom environment-—inner con— trol-~freedom and responsibility ~8haring, selecting partners, initiating activities with others ~Positive reinforcement -Continue with a task -Exhibit curiosity, questions, explore, experiment ~Creativity--different ways to approach a task ‘ —Rhythms -Dancing -Jungle Gym -Free play activities ~Balance Beam —Mats — tumbling —Play All Equipment ~Jumpin Jiminy —Jump Roles - form- ing circles with activities -Jumping Jacks éDuck Duck Goose -Squirrel in Tree eArt work ~Writing on the board -Finger painting ~Folding —Stirring pudding -Peg boards -Pouring ~Geoboards -Puzzles -Cuisenairre Rods -Sorting beads and buttons -TRY ~51; lding Blocks -L.cing -Johnny WOrks With One Hammer ~Bear Hunt -Acting out Mother Goose Rhym -Rhythm Esta..ae ~Dodge Ball -Balls & Skate Board -Play House -Roller Skates ~Snowman Activities -Up the Steps -Weaving -Cha1k Boards ~Flannel Boards ~Clay -Sand box -Water play ~5preading peanut butter -Coats — but ons and zippers ~Clean up time -Finger plays -Using musical instruments (ESE-2A TITLE I - 161 PRE-SCHCOL continued) Type of Activity Properties of and Appropriate Behav- ior for Exploring Properties of an Object (shape, color, hardness-- using the five senses. Changing shades, measuring, weighing) Knowledge of Rules that Apply to Learners, i.e.J health, and safety Activity-Examples v— -Waking apple sauce, soups, cookies, etc. ~Smelling and handling fruits and vegetables -Sawing wood -Tinkertoys -Sand paper activities ~Feeling activities ~Snacks - (mixtures) -Snow experiments ~Bubble blowing -Straw painting ~Furry and other textured toys -Fast and slow inclined plane ~Paper mache -Stories -Visitors - nurse -Health Lessons ‘i '— v —Growing plants from seed ~Cutting ~Freezing —Heating -Rolling -Twistino —Frosting ~Jello —Butter -Cakes ~Paint mixing ~5inking and float- ing ~Color macaroni -Play dough ~Safety Lessons ~Line-up activities ~Iaking turns Social Knowledge —Books «Community workers (world of work and '-Field Trips -School workers roles of workers) -Films ~Visiting patrolmen _-Visitors uPostman -Role-playing ~Kandy Keg Field Trip -He1pers in the room One Criterion ~Color - blocks -Sorting Classification, -Shape r-Attendance - number Shifting to a ~Sizc of girls second criterion —Texture —Attendance - number among an array of ~Tone of boys objGCts (grouping -Utility ~Putting toys away shifting from one ~Smell ~Doll House criterion to --Taste —Doll Dishes another) -Calendar (continue) (E: P [H l .TIILE I - RE—SCHOOL continued) 162 Type of Activity Activity Examples Relations Among Transitive Rela- tionships (seri- ation--comparing and arranging things according to a given dimension by transitive rela- -Length -Height -Weight ~Shades of color -Hardness -Softness ~Cuisennaire rods tions) ~Block tower building -Texture activities Convervation of Number by One-to- One Comparison (gross comparison -Collections u rearrangement of -Lunch activities ~Setting table ~Getting coats -Right boot -Pouring activities ~between collec— ~Matching - tions; comparisons —Calendar by one-to-one -Passing anything correspondence) -Weather TOpological Space #Ring Around the -Directions from (meaning of in-out, Rosies adult over~under, in -Squirrel in a - ~Three Billy Coats front of, in back Tree Gruff of, in relation to -Hokey Pokey -Jack in the Box self, toys, pic- -when You're Up -London Bridge tures) Your Up -P0pcorn -In and Out the ~Use of box ' Ui ndows «Bear Hunt Topological Rela— —Ganes - straight —Counting days tionships Concern- line till ing Linear Order (structure of space) ~Role-playing -Manipulation of Object (rods, blocks, toys) -Poetry -Prose —Fingergplays ~Bear Hunt. .A ~Ten Little Indians Parts of a Whole —Clay ~Paper cutting ~Puzzles ~ inlaid ~Coloring ~Sawing —Cooking ~Body Parts ~Growing plants ~Filling partial nnnrqvnnCfi‘; -.‘~ _- w--—-—‘.‘—.‘._ _-..——._—--’—~._.—__.__ .l ~_.—.._—.__,.__e-'-_._.- —Gingerbread Man '-Bread and rolls -Strawberry jam -Ripping cloth st -Torn paper artwo ~Loops - artwork —Placement c: v a. v. - tO‘.'S ipS .\ in specific unit or box (ESEA TITLE I - 163 PRE-SCHCGL continued) ije of Activity Activity Samples COpying of Specific -Line drawings ~Geoboards Shapes —Sand drawing -TRY -Paper cutting -Cookie cutting ~writing chalkboard ~Directed copying with clay activity -"Simon Says" -Pantomine‘ -Tracing —Exercises ~Rubbing ~Pegboard Temporal Ordering of Three or Four Events (structur- -Show and Tell ~Story — book -Role-playin -Growth stages ~Finger play -Farmer in Dell ing time) —Science experiments -Audio-visual ~Calendar materials —Preparation art, lunch, cleanup home bound Use of Body to -Musical games -Seals Represent Objects —Role-playin —Bunny Hop (i. e., pretcnd ing tC “Old a tele- "hhfia *3 .‘-.U’-- .I* ‘ r‘ ~".'-.‘v \v: —‘v ‘1.- -Shadow Plays ~Dramatization -Exercise Records ~Bodies for race cars Use of Objects to Represent Other Objects (props) (representation- at symbol lcvel) -Story telling by using props —Role-playing -Puppets ~Flannel Board Uttering of Sounds —Role- playin -Flannel board to Represent ~Musical game —Dramatization ijecrs -Puppets Use of Throeu ~Prete nd telephone ~Educubes for drums Dimensional Vodels —Playing house —Domino blocks for to Repres sernt Objects -Using blocks walkie talkie. (represent:tion at wBuggy for cars syr.bal lexel) A .:o- -Dimens ional —Read aloud of picture story book Representation of —Manipulation of packets of cards which con— Objects 2r Draw— tain pictures of common objects ings (eye-hand —Drawing on chalkboard, easel, coloring man ipulati'wfl paper Play with water ar.d brush, pitcher, sprinkling can J- ,a =- —Play teacher or // APPENDIX.F TABLE F.1. SUMMARY BY OBJECTIVE OF 1978-79 TITLE I PREKINDERGARTEN MASTERY CRITERIA Cbiective Prekindergarten Mastery Number Component S.O.R.T. Test Items Criteria 1 Cognitive l, 2, 3 80% 2 of 3 2 Cognitive 4, S, 6, 7 80% 3 of 4 ‘ 3 Cognitive 8, 9 50% 2 of 2 4 COQnitive 10, 11 70% 1 of 2 5 Cognitive 12, 13 50% l of 2 6 Cognitive 14 85% 1 of l 7 Cognitive 15 80% 1 of l 8 Cognitive 16 65% l of l 9 Cognitive 17 50% 1 of 1 lo Psychomotor 41, 42, 43, 44 80% 3 of 4 ll Psychomotor 45, 46 65% 2 of 2 12 Psychomotor 47, 48, 49, 50 65% 3 of 4 l3 Psychomotor 51, 52, 53, 54 80% 3 of 4 14 Parent Participation 60% 5 times 15 Parent Educarion Program 60% 3 times 16 Parent Education Program 80% 9 activities (h 165 1978-1979 TITLE I PREKINDERGARTEN PRODUCT OBJECTIVES- Physical Knowledge 80% of the pupils will correctly respond to at least two of three items related to objectives 1. Social Knowledge (social roles) 80% of the pupils will demonstrate knowledge of social roles by correctly responding to at least three of four items related to objective 2. Knowledge: Classification 50% of the pupils will successfully_apply two criteria for sorting: color and/or form. Knowledge: Logical-Mathematical-Seriation 70% of the pupils will achieve mastery of at least one of two items related to objective 4. Soatiotemooral Knowledge: Structuring of Time 50% of the pupils will respond correctly to at least 50% of items related to objective 5. pressive Language: Labeling w 85% of the pupils will label at least four objects in the birthday party picture. Expressive Language: Svntax 80% of the pupils will use sentences of at least five words to describe the birthday party picture.. Expressive Language: Fluency 65% of the pupils will use at least three of five elements of fluency in their description of the birthday party picture. Expressive Language: Plot Extension 50% of the pupils will use at least one element of plot extension in their description of the birthday party picture. Fine Motor Coordination 80% of the upils will complete successfully at least three of four of tens related to objective 10. ‘JJU 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 166 Spatiotemporal Knowledge: Structuring of Space (order) 65% of the pupils will correctly respond to topological rela- tionships of order or pattern. Representation at the Svmbol Level: Specific Shapes 65% of the pupils will copy successfully three of four shapes. Gross Motor Coordination 80% of the pupils will successfully complete at least three of four items related to objective 13. Parent Participation 1 60% of the adult members of the prekindergarten family will participate in school activities at least five times per year. Parent Education Program: FridayAMeetings 60% of the adult members of the prekindergarten family will participate in at least three friday meetings. Parent Education Program: Home Work Activities 80% of the adult members of the prekindergarten family will complete at least nine prekindergarten home activities and return them to school. APPENDIX G :ouaa_3;ca coacdcn>ccaac :o casccz coaan~saca concacc>ccmac co cases: :635 sag.— ttararc>carmp co peacoz calyx—3...:— coacazmlocrm: :3 $5:ng Asga>uoozav were at:. 2:: asaac mo>_m $55.6: ..o_>:zg; "cf—«095 1.5.1 3 ll dmmw:zzoo Nsa_ .uwoco: ccm .nzoa; .cozrc: .ssoo on-~s co ace need .~—osc_co _mnoo do new an-es co sec ck-~s co umo «hnoc Ho R:a amnm: co Rem .mma. .Lozcoc peg .ncczm .Loxccs “such seam .anozp~mo ck-~k co awe .k-oo co nae kes_ .__¢;=_no ma a: as sea coo— .:=c«co:m .ccg_ ._—o: thcc ama— .oaza.a::_ erosiono>62 cuss: __mooa Romano mm-c: one. .oo:aw3":._ azoaer._c>o: ::==;_ _~wngs .w.t.eo _s-cn mk-~s co saw ak-oo co pom an-c: so has scm_ ...:pr30 mm...— va:o_3::_ ozoE;c_9>o: cgszz ~_ona: NSICC mc3_ .—_o: .coa. .ndc: m:-cr cox; ...EJLQE :36— .:r:oo , .aca_ .nttcz 1:: mhzczoxzcca crush Hummduwa: mmmmml.flfli9HMfl _.._.___. 2: 2:22—3:— 2::.><__.._._ ::,._ uric—ray...— _..._z <...<: 2.24:2: ...: :;:<% c:: do or: co>mr .m sob—g nomaaacoc_ .: xggc ca car‘s; .r 1:57 own man: .N mug—o0 x_n anxv~ a: :_o;:_ so moan: u :gELo: Lc_>::ao gm_acc;n Nuke—CU ‘— “‘ muons. u cgscoc Lod>dcmn o.c_gg, mug—go . MW cfioacq c omens: cga>mzoa omamgogm 11 mug—go : an d mom. -aarsca I pwELo: com>ccoo gaaagoam .Oam :.o:o 63.2 ore we term: .nco_oo sauce new. xaucopa u coELo: com>nzcn gma_owan muouog : co n no“. -.orog. u goers: c:_>rzob gwauccan uco.og r pervade u twang: cou>ncga gw__:;;n :occa cc: 62—: cmczccoo .m,m ”tr-cars - .555: hetero; 3:75;: mac—go raga narrate u cgiaoc Lou>mrio :m_a:c;: Aseptic: . : .c .L :..o~ov ...:c._ .3 xi...- 332532 I cycle: ..o_.>:__.._. c_ .73.; TESS; W. :N. N. — .__gbcsno czm .o—ua_; .xg.:3 Nua— .Locavc cc: .rco»; .c::::: oom. ...o: rrm— .Eczznz Nua— .uoncmu c:n.mco»g .umwca: good .aax>m are .hwzumum .:mEcoEE‘N :50— .~_oscEcu pea .o~aua4 .xggsc moo. .occg: ccg muznzvxrnua NW?“ .mecac prg.u:gz; .Loursz :cm— .:om:o_n 3:9— . _ 1.3.3. aca— ......=_;._..:" «.33. . xix—.....rw -l.'!l eff—13...}. .3. C.» .s-oo mm-co cc1cc anus: :«.m: m: N:ncn ~:-on ~:-on c»-cn Axocacv ougeco ting—go ness: .3 Asg-m>v.aoaaoo pogo — 00 $0532 . c Accouwv pose: Lo_og or» do aggeco a: ese“. .3 A3: _.~v Trixie ...:3—3: @535 :pz-Jafs .C III '1‘ 1.2....m..:__g.._ Maura. A._..........; . _ .2 «...—...... ggcmzsgc ogcccoc cw accesscg mecca erg—.6— - cescoc cc~>mcon gacmocam cocco Locos; c. comprise Ha aomucog macaw 3.22.: 26.: oco :5: one... o: . .50; cc: 363v mama: gourd co. .co: 6a ecu ccccsxcnc ux_c3 u tvELoc Lom>ccoc gmcmgccn 1 69 cocoonsaoc comracc>=::_c co coEccc ccc LocAEcxo ca Axon n:_c sung a. acmcaaum>o gs>_w - Eco: co cow>czmc ode—oaam :.cc¢g amaze me w>«w: ..o.m ..zcmcaccoe :mwcca: naczoo - tears: Lom>mzoc cacwocan : o» nuczoc - 295.0: coq>acmn cacdgoam n ow odczoo . 135.6: uca>econ g__ago;m N :3 noczog .. 3.3.2:: .2132.ng 97:39:“ 42.12.23 “13 :mo— .u~oc;5co ccn .c_ud—; .xo_:3 Gum“ .~_caamu mom. .scco: ccc xuzcccxcmca mNK: .zccchzos ucm_ ._~c3c.co wma— .uocuwc cca .mco»: .cowcc: kai 37.9.93 ccc .mcoc: ..uoxccz .__cccscc 2:: .o_»u.; .xc_:3 xxx; 375.74: 1:: Jacob. .Loxcrz Oaaxo— . _ .3303 CC: Ccafi ._—CS Oc$~ .-v:ou 0.x..— .Zoro: :aAw: 1:: cca— .:c; nos. ...:2 ~:-on 5:: cos. .~_o: wc_3::go mega cczso .5 lagccorg_.r~ _m¢.::=c—:;:x xxx... 77.5.7.2. 1:... .2513 ......art: '1. u 1 \ ..Wzm..M.w..mw.m angem mk-~k co .k-oo co on-c: cc amuc: $Llc: :n Om IQ: :m-p: oo-:m slaswla caion eWQ finm new 33. ozo mango muse cc or» .66; 69 was accesses: m llum Amour... .6 cones: nzzm _:_.:=::og a._c._ n muff—...“. 33.x: zoo—c 0.: a: axo_a mxsc_; o>._ co m__a a son. exec—c Lsou 3:5: 3.. "3:223 .m— .2: .m— .m— .__ .3— 1770 comes—21c; com—3::>gnu:o :c .3532 sex; .Zoizau socce ccccco>g . cchoc com>czon oaawomam .nco_ .Eeccx: 36.23 pcmc..c>o I cmecoc coa>mzo2 omuuowcm o:o~ ._~omeu Isuzu ccmccocc: u coELoc ho.>mcoa omuficoam com. .~_c: and. .acms :;o_o>g: ccszz co oazaaamc— ~_e:cc ska. .—_o;cscv cc: .ogaa.; .xcmza 2.x; £33575. amb— 5:9: 1co_o>o: :55: .—6 3.53m:— :33: 3.5. 2:57:59. 5:: 3.»:- .n.:::. 2:: w..:;.3§.:.._._ meg. .z:_>:: :ma. .__:;;E:g 22m .a_asla .xclzz sex; .cgfzfixzz ccn mecca msa— 223.3: 1:: Jacob. .Lozccz mmau .xorccccw mea~ .ccmcmaxzz cc: mace: «Ra— .69332... ace... 1.07:6: 52:3: Zora: {1:1 .335; ccm unsccuzcmca .mca_ .cnsrasam 6.3. 5252:: cc: ...gczcz £3.262o2322 wk...- .._.:.._..3 1:: .:::>.._ .....2::: flares}; .............._..: cmuws do flmo .cozz «5-06 mg Ksm m oxa— caccm mmuc: .uo .Rcm 0.. “3:7..— .Cm :m-c: Locgcoa do -,. conch :Mca_3 a: on out: m>_c ~:-en ..z: mzoczs .o. Amhoav omczm ~m "mum: Ac_cauo s:-~: . was: once ::-cr no 633 so. aco— rn. .ch ace :0 3:3: .2— .m Ac_c~wv g: :n.:: mmIC: Ammosv .3 Ace: umbac:65vc ago 3:-N: Izaak wcqhaoow 7:5... 5;? 270‘. “ragga 23.2: .m— 3x22.- 3a.-a.: ... 1:... :..>_u. ..C. Mum»..:fl:_ wfluh A._......:Cv . _ .3 .._._._.._. 171 :c_a -=_:;a; scuxazm>c::mc :c ccsgcz a._mn:.cn. :Lzm:o_: cca :chuwzz :vzxuc LEE: - e.,...Eo: Lo.>::wz 2:913 z..ma $2.3»:— .:...:...:=>_.c:_.c :: .353: ::_a n.~_:;.:_ tanned—:w>trxu_= ..c _:.E..:_ wintzzmam... :fic— ...oagexo cc: .o—aamg .xo.:a C€¢~ .Catahmzm .mo¢_ ..fio: .o:a_ ...oucc :mo— .~_oagexo as: .w.da«; .xowsa 93— .295: mea— ...93c~:o Nua— .Lmngo: 2:: .520»; .umwcsa :ca— .:c::o~m xca— ._—mzc~cc :sa— ......__._E...u ....x 57:: .1925 ago. ..3 ...caaxv cca_ ...o: sea. .__;;:_:2 \.c\._ . _ 7.31:5 3274mm MHZ. m: N: ms-~m ;o _s-oc .o on-c: .c ~s-oc :o cs-~u ho _m-oc ho mm-c: .o m: c:u.\\: cm-cr cs-ms .a .m-cc go aw-:: .9 Cx. -33.. ._C .5.24 .c 5%. S: .0 «so flea mum &:o “me fine :zoc Lo weazg z;aagsc : :__m+ .mw mama; «Eva caesamo eczohw mzcmhh. . :N Loss—g a no wohu : .Lcwuw; a“ zo_:3 m—_oE .PN xvma: : 3:. .....33 Ca “fie—.‘CL . NH 4::. I 3x.— ...—7...; ca Hummm 5.2.1... . T. ‘I .I “m; azua A._..a:::v . ~ .2 ........_. 1772 2» .g .n .0 :o_u:_:co LC. azaoxm hauccguoo ccc 5.8:c:__ cxamau u cwéuo: Lou>mzmz o___co;: >_a:macamcoo cam: amazoazm: aged; .55 .. €9.20: 2:223; “3.22.5.5 c—aax a.mfzrti :m do:_:;d:~ £53.; - 72.20: .253233 .£ 239.: 3:535 : 2:: ... .3 .x ... .> .3 2.3.2:... - 2;:23: 213:3; u...I..::.: Tassaw . ccod .:asupo;n mm-oo :ommam ax“. :sa— ucowamcuw>zoo . 231.533 2:: .073“.— .zcmzc N: :u Swazi}.— .\.N 3.5— . _ 71.7.2. :m . ‘~.s‘\.~— ..Av— ...,qp .:.:.._=:..; :2: 52.3.... .xv_:3 fa. 33:32.. a»: ...N ..l.u.......u...|~flm 74.3 3.1.8.4343?“ mamwflgyum AduH Ao—...—._..:v ...". .._.—....? SAGINAW OBJECTIVE REFERENCED TESTS PREKII‘DERGARI‘EN (:) School District of the City of Saginaw, 1978 Rev. 1973 173 r5 as a: . l w- 5“: o?L am 0» .Flt &$ 3 . ( hr» ‘ll 17b DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING PREKINDERGARTEN S.O.R.T. - Read these thoroughly before testing - All directions that are for teacher use only will be in parentheses ( ) and are not to be read to the pupil. This test is to be administered on a one-to-one basis. Even though the test is immediately scored on a right or wrong basis by the person administering it, all pupil responses are to be accepted, i.e., the content of a pupil's response should be accepted by the test administrator. The person administering the test should, however, make sure that the pupil clearly understands the task that s/he is to per- form, i.e., s/he should be told he! to respond to the questions and this may involve correcting the pupil. A separate machine readable answer sheet will be provided to those administering the test and it should be marked as the test is administered. Use these symbols for scoring: 5 for correct responses. g for incorrect or no responses. Print the pupil's name, last name first, then first name, etc., in the boxes provided on the scoring sheet. Then blacken the letter box below the letter which matches those in the pupil's name. Also print and darken in the boxes corresponding to the birth date (month and year) and sex of each pupil in the appropriate boxes provided on the answer sheet. Print the name of the school and your name (instructor) on the lines provided. Make every attempt to administer all items to pupils being tested. 17s G Take as much time as you think is necessary to administer the test to each pupil. This may involve administering the test in a number of sittings. Since you are to record correct and incorrect responses. your directions for each test item will also have a section des- cribing what the correct or acceptable responses are so that you can appropriately mark your scoring sheet. Familiarize yourself with all testing materials before administering-the test. Make sure that you have a complete set of manipulative materials and flash cards before beginning the test. In addition. read all the specific directions for adminis- tering the test items before testing begins. This practice should help you more quickly score each response since you will be somewhat knowledgeable of the acceptable response charts provided in the test instructions. 176 PREKINDERGARTEN S.O.R.T. TEST ITEMS - I. COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT SUBTEST - Remember, all statements in parentheses ( ) are intended for your use and are not to be read to the child. In recording answers on your answer sheet, you should code A - correct response and g - incorrect or no response. 1. SAY, "Let's play a game where you have to tell me about things you cannot see." (Hand the pupil feely sock box Number 1. It contains a metal zipper.) SAY, "Put your hand in the sock. Keep your hand in the sock. Take the thing that is in the sock and hold on to it. Tell me about it." (Pause. Listen for one of these acceptable responses and mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) Acceptable Responses -- name of the object -- shape of the object -- use of the object -- name of the material of the object -- texture of the object SAY, "Let's take a look at it. Now, let‘s do another one." (Put away box Number 1 making sure that the zipper is put back, take out box Number 2.) 2. SAY, SAY, SAY, 177 (Hand the pupil feely sock box Number 2. It contains a toothbrush.) "Put your hand in the sock. Keep your hand in the sock. Take the thing that is in the sock and hold on to it. Tell me about it." (Pause. Listen for one of these acceptable responses and mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) AcCeptable Responses -- name of object —- shape of the object -- use of the object -- name of the material of the object -- texture of the object "Let's take a look at it. Now, let's do another one." (Put away.box Number 2 making sure that the tooth- brush is put back, take out box Number 3.) (Hand the pupil feely sock box Number 3. It contains a plastic egg.) "Put your hand in the sock. Keep your hand in the sock. Take the thing that is in the sock and hold on to it. Tell me about it." (Pause. Listen for one of these acceptable responses and mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) Acceptable Responses -- name of the object -- shape of the object -- use of the object -- name of the material of the object —- texture of the object "Let's take a look at it." (Put away box Number 3 making sure the egg is put back.) 4. SAY, "Now let's take a look at some pictures and talk about them." (Show the child the picture marked with the Number 4 on the back. As you are holding it follow these directions.) - SAY, "Tell me who this worker is. What does s/he do?" (Pause for response, listening for one of the acceptable responses listed below.) Acceptable Responses -- name of the role or title of the worker OR -- a description of what s/he does or how the worker helps us. (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) 5-7. (Put away picture Number 4 and continue following the same directions for pictures 5, 6, and 7. Remember to mark on your scoring sheet after each question.) 8. SAY, "In just a minute we will play a game with some candies which should be lots of fun." (Open the envelope marked item Number 8 and randomly place candies that it contains in front of the pupil.) SAY, "Some candies are yellow, some are green, some are round, and some are long. Put the candies that are alike into two piles." (Pause for the child to group the candies. Make sure that one of the groups is correct according to the acceptable responses listed below.) Acceptable Responses -- grouping according to color -- grouping according to form (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) 179 9. SAY, ”In just a minute we will play a game with some circles and triangles which should be lots of fun." (Open the envelope marked item Number 9 and randomly place the shapes in front of the pupil.) SAY, ”Put the shapes that are the same into two piles.” (Pause for the child to group the shapes Make sure that the groups are correct according to the acceptable response listed below.) Acceptable Response -- grouping according to form (Mark your'scoring sheet accordingly.) 10. SAY, ”Now let's play with some toy people. They are a family.” (Remove toy dolls from envelope marked item No. 10 and allow child to play with and talk about father, mother, sister or brother and baby toys or their own family members.) SAY, "Now, can you put this family from the biggest to the smallest?“ (Pause for the child to arrange the dolls from biggest to smallest or the reverse order. Make sure that the arrangement is correct according to the acceptable responses listed below.) Accepsable Respgnses -- all four dolls from biggest to smallest OR -- all four dolls from smallest to biggest (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) ll 11. say, say, . say, say, SAMPLE rxsncrss say, SAY, 180 ”Now let's take a look at some pictures and put them in order." (Open the envelope marked item Number 11 and randomly place the four pictures in front of the pupil.) ”Here are four girls. Some of the girls are tall, some are short. Put the girls in a row from tallest to shortest.” (Provide a ruler as base. Pause for the child to arrange the girls. Make sure that the arrangement is correct according to the acceptable responses listed below.) Acceptable Responses -- all four pictures from tallest to shortest OR -- all four pictures from shortest to tallest (Hark your scoring sheet accordingly.) “Let's play a game with some pictures and stories. I will read you a story. Then you will make the pictures tell me what happened. You will give me the picture that happened first, next, and last." (Open envelope marked sample, 12 and 13. Take out pictures for the sample item.) "Let's do the first one together. Listen to this story. 'Mary is riding her bicycle to school. She locked it up. Then she played ball with the kids.‘ Now let's put the pictures tOgether so they tell the same story.“ (Teacher hands the pictures to the child.) “Give me the picture that happened first.“ (Pause for answer and correct child if s/he has not understood directions.) "Give me the picture that happened next.“ (Pause for answer and correct child if s/he has not understood directions.) ”Give me the picture that happened last." (If child gives incorrect sequence, teacher tells the story and presents the pictures in the correct order.) 181 (Take out pictures marked Number 12.) 12. SAY, "Let's do another picture story. Listen to this story. 'Danny broke a glass while washing dishes. He swept up the glass. He put the broken glass in the trash can.‘ (Teacher hands the pictures to child.) "Give me the picture that happened first." (Pause for the correct picture.) ”What happened next?” (Puase for the correct picture.) "What happened last?" (Pause for the child to answer the questions. Make sure that the answer is listed below as an accept- able response.) Acceptable Response -- all three pictures in correct time order sequence even if backwards. (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly and put the pictures away.) (Take out pictures marked Number 13.) 13. SAY, “Let's do another picture story. Listen to this story. 'Jane and her two friends climbed the tree. The branch Jane was on broke and she fell. Jane broke her leg and had to walk on crutches.‘ Now put the pictures together so they tell the same story.” (Teacher hands the three pictures to child.) “Give me the picture that happened first." (Pause for the picture.) “What happened next?" (Pause for the picture.) ”What happened last?" (Pause tor the child to answer the questions. Make sure that the answer is listed below as an accept- able response.) Acceptable Response -- all three pictures in correct time order sequence even if backwards (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly and put the pictures away.) 182 14. SAY, ”I have a picture here out of a story book. It's part of the story, but the words are missing. (mld ypu look at my picture and help me with the story? (Teacher hands child the picture from folder marked Number 14.) SAY, “Telluwhatywseeinthispictmre.” (Pause tor the child to answer. Make sure that the answer is listed below as an acceptable response.) W — nane at least four objects in picture (need not identify correctly) Eb! exauple. 3 allfllm cons candles koolaid juice chairs table hats cake Incorrect Macs - did not talk -- named less than four objects - gave irrelevant responses (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) (Child continues to use picture marked Number 14.)- 15. amen me mas. you- think is' happening in the picture? (Pause for the child to tell the story. Make sure that the answer is listed below as an accept- able response.) Acceptable Remse —usesasentenceof Sormorewords Incorrect Responses - child Goes not talk — uses sentmoes 03 four words or less —- uses phrases (Izark your scoring sheet accordingly.) 16. 17. 183 (Score story given for item 15 in terms of acceptable responses given below.) Accsptable Response -- uses at least 3 of S of the listed elements of fluency. * Incorrect Response -- uses less than 3 of the listed elements of fluency. * * Pluency consists of additional responses using: -- modifiers (uses adjectives or adverbs.) -- spatial elements (uses prepositions indicating position.) -- number words -- emotional or feeling words -- sequence (uses phrases to describe a series of events.) (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly.) (Child continues to hold the picture from the folder marked Number 15.) SAY, ”What do you think will happen next? What will they do when the party is over?" (Pause for the child to answer. Make sure that the answer is listed below as an acceptable response.) Acceptable Response -- child uses 1 or more of the elements listed below as plot extension. * *Plot extension consists of: -- inferences -- predictions -- cause and effect -- conclusions Incorrect Resppnse -- child does not use plot extension. * * Plot extension consists of: -- inferences -- predictions -- cause and effect -- conclusions (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly and out the picture away.) 41 42 18“ - II. PSYCHOMOTOR ABILITIES SUBTEST - 41. (From envelope marked Number 41, ask pupil to fold a 5' x 5' sheet of paper in half. Teacher demonstrates with a sample.) SAY. “Fold the paper in half.” Acceptable Responsg - using ruler, folds should show an accuracy 1 3/8' in any direction. (Hark scoring sheet accordingly.) 42. (using the same folded sheet. ask pupil to open the sheet and cut the paper on the fold.) SAY. I'Now open the sheet and cut the paper on the fold line.” (Teacher demonstrates with his/her sample.) Acceptable Response -- using ruler, cuts should be i 8" from the fold. (Hark scoring sheet accordingly.) 43. 185 (Using a crayon from envelope Number 43, ask pupil to color inside the outline of the circle.) SAY, “Color inside this circle.” Acceptable Response -- using ruler, coloring marks should not exceed 1/2' at any point and approximately 2/3 rds of circle should be colored. (Mark scoring sheet accordingly.) 44. 186 (Using a crayon from envelope Number 44. ask pupil to draw a line between the two lines.) SAY, "Draw a line between the two lines from the mouse to the house." Acceptable Resppnse -- Crayon line must be within parallel lines and connect the mouse to the house or come within at least 1/2” of touching both the mouse and the house. (Mark scoring sheet accordingly.) 187 45. (Using cut-out forms from envelope Number 45. place them on the table facing the child in the order shown below. Then take a similar set from envelope Number 45 and ask the child to make the same pattern.) SAY, “You make your row look just like mine.” A U U H 'v' Acceptable Resppnse -- Linear order must be the same as the example. (Hark scoring sheet accordingly.) (Child must be seated across from the teacher. Teacher places his/her 5 toy cars from envelope Number 46 on the oaktag circle. The teacher puts down the parking strip, one in front of the child and another at least 10 inches away from that one and parallel to it.) SAY, ”We are going to build parking lots. First, you watch how I park my cars and trucks." (From the circle the teacher takes 5 cars and places them on teacher parking strip 02 in the same predetermined order for 311 children as printed on parking strip. Teacher then places the child's 5 toy cars on the oaktag circle and asks the child to park his/her cars on child's parking strip 01 to look just like the teachers.) SAY, "Park your cars just like mine.” Acceptable Response -- Linear order of cars must be the same as the teacher's order according to color. (Mark lcoring sheet accordingly.) 188 47-50 (Using cards from envelope Number 47-50, show one card at a time in the following order. Band an extra sheet of paper to the child to draw the figures.) SAY, “Draw a shape like this one.“ Acceptable Resppnse -- See Appendix A for acceptable drawings as shown in Administration and Scoring Manual for the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration. 51. (Given the directive (opportunity) to hop on one foot the child will be able to take five consecutive hops on either foot.) Acceptable Resppnse -- Successful performance of the above activity. (Mark scoring sheet accordingly.) (Given a mark on the floor the child will be able to jump over it by simultaneously lifting both feet from the floor and propelling his/her body forward and landing with feet together.) Acceptable Response -- Successful performance of the above activity. (Mark scoring sheet accordingly.) 189 53. (Given a directive (opportunity) to skip, as a participant in any group activity which involves skipping, the learner will be able to skip using alternate feet, for a distance of ten or more feet.) W —Successful performance of the above activity. (Mark scoring sheet accordingly.) 54. (Given a ten-foot length of a 2" by 4' piece of lumber the child will be able to walk a distance of at least five feet on the 4' side of the lumber.) Acceptable Respongg -Successful perfbrmuncenof the above activity. (Mark your scoring sheet accordingly and put the materials away. flank and regard the child for working with you.) 190 FORM 4 Vertical- Horizontal Cross Age Norm: . . . Male: +1 Sconng Cnterza page: 3.3 1. Two fully intersecting lines not: I 2. Two continuous lines ...a not ...-L— 3. Atlas: V; ofcachlincwithin 20' ofin not: % coma orientation t4 \‘vx + A. 74 a 4:; +1 “ J6 ... 191 —‘ FORM 6 Square . l —4 Scoring Criteria Four clearly defined ride: (corner: need not be angular) Age Norm: Male: 4-6 Female: +3 nacho D a I ‘ ‘1' I a Failing DO- I Q. OD 192 FORM 8 Oblique Cross Scorin g Criteria 1. Two continuous, intersecting lines 2. Lines angled between 20°-"0° and 110°-160° 3. Fairly equal length of “leg” X x >4 '7 >< X Age Norm: Male: +11 Female: +10 not: X x not: + 7‘ ...; x X Failing 1 2 Z 2 2 3 3 3 .4 Is) 4.) I) 193 FORM 9 Triangle Age Norm: A . . . Male: 5.3 Scanng Criteria Female: 5,3 1. Three clearly defined sides not: a g 2. One corner higher than others not: V V Passing L Failing 2 : <1 A y b . 35 APPENDIX I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING ' SICHICAN ° 48824 HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) ' 238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (517))”.2130 February 12, 1981 Mr. Richard N. Claus 3207 Curtis Road Birch Run, Michigan hBhlS Dear Mr. Claus: Subject: Proposal Entitled, ”The Development and Evaluation of Prekindergarten Rediness Screening Device” The above referenced project was recently submitted for review to the UCRIHS. We are pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project at its meeting on February 2, l98l Projects involving the use of human subjects must be reviewed at least annually. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining apprOpriate UCRIHS approval prior to the anniversary date noted above. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. if we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, We Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Robert L. Ebel 19Hv r—i othQL DciRl-LT OFTHE CITY OF 195 SAGINAW 550 Millard Street Saginaw, Michigan 48607 MIIRISAF‘fiSmTE 517-776-0200 FOSTER B. GIBBS, Ph. D.,Superintendent JAN 21 1981 OFFICE OF KtbtAKbfl Ut'ItLUPMFNT January 19, 1981 Professor Henry E. Bredeck, Chairman University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) Michigan State University 238 Admini stration Bui lding East Lansing, MI 48824 Dear Professor Bredeckz, I have reviewed in detail the research proposal written by Richard N. Claus. The Policy Manual, written by the Board of Education of the School District of the City of Saginaw, stipulates the steps needed to be taken to gain approval to conduct research within this district (see attachment for a copy of the Research Policy). As the key administrator in implementing the policy, I can assure you that Mr. Claus's proposal adequately meets all of our standards to protect human subjects. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL fiat/If) gm: 4” Barry . Quimper, Dire tor Evaluation, Testing and Research BEQ/kjm Attachment 8£ARD OF EDUCATION EtnA Braun, {resident Edger P. Stgeifes, Vice President Willie-g. Ihflnpson, Secretary James R Kanary, Treasurer Naixer C. Averill an, MD, Trustee iuben Daniels. Trustee _ 196 RESEARCH POLICY Any internal or external research involving students, teachers, or other employees of the School District of the City of Saginaw, must follow the procedures outlined below. The researcher will supply the Director of Testing and Research with the information described below, follow the sequence outlined below, and obtain written permission as stated prior to conducting the research. 1. Describe the implications and benefits of the study for local education. 2. Submit a written plan of action defining the following: a. Purpose of the study. b. Population involved. c. Design of the study, including timeline. d. Instrumentation. e. Guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity. f. Written permission of partici— pants, when appropriate. 9. Guarantee of feedback to partici— pants. - 3. Receive written permission from the Director of Testing and Research to conduct the research. *Taken from A Poligy Manual for the Qperation 9f the Saginaw Evaluation, Testing and Research Department. APPENDIX J TABLE J.1. AGE AND SEX OF CHILDREN SCREENED USING THE PREKINDERGARTN READINESS SCREENING DEVICE (PRSD) FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS-~SEPTENBER/ OCTOBER 1978, 1979, AND 1980. NUMBER OF CHILDREN SCREENED Three Consecutive AGE 1978 1979 1980 Year Total Year Month Nale Feaale Other* Total Hale Feaale Other Total Male Feaale Other Total 'lale Feaale Other Total 2 1 - -- -- -- -- 1 —- 1 -- - -— -- —- 1 -- 1 3 0 -— 1 —- 1 -- -- -- -- -— -- -- -- -— l -- 1 3 6 -- -- -- -— -- 1 -- 1 -— —- -- -- -- 1 -- 1 3 8 1 -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 3 9 4 4 -- 8 3 4 -- 7 -- 3 -- 3 7 11 -- 18 3 10 21 16 -- 37 21 14 -- 35 12 16 -- 28 54 46 -- 100 3 11 14 15 1 30 18 23 1 42 14 16 -- 30 46 54 2 102 4 O 27 24 -- 51 20 19 2 41 15 23 1 39 62 66 3 131 4 1 19 25 1 45 11 18 2 31 21 20 -- 41 51 63 3 117 4 2 21 15 2 38 19 28 1 48 26 20 2 48 66 63 5 134 4 3 16 27 -- 43 17 24 6 47 16 14 -- 30 49 65 6 120 4 4 23 19 -- 42 15 15 5 35 13 11 -- 24 51 45 5 101 4 5 20 21 -- 41 19 22 2 43 21 21 1 43 60 64 3 127 4 6 22 22 -- 44 12 26 2 40 16 15 1 32 50 63 3 116 4 7 10 19 -- 29 14 15 1 30 19 14 -- 33 43 48 1 92 4 8 20 24 -- 44 26 18 50 12 14 -- 26 58 56 6 120 4 9 18 22 -- 40 18 11 3 32 12 12 -- 24 48 45 3 96 4 10 -- 1 -- 1 2 1 -- 3 2 1 -- 3 4 3 -- 7 4 11 -- -- —- -- —- 2 -- 2 1 1 -- 2 l 3 -- 4 5 , 0 1 -- -- l 1 -- 1 2 -- -- 1 I 2 —- 2 4 5 2 -- —- -- -- -- 2 -- 2 -- -- -- -— -- 2 -- 2 5 3 -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1 2 -- -- -- -- l -- l 2 s s -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- .. -- -- —- 1 1 5 6 -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 I -- -- I 2 —- -- 2 S 8 2 l -- 3 —- —— -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 1 -- 3 7 1 -- -- -— -- -- -- —- -— -- 1 -- 1 -— 1 -- 1 Other -- 1 -- 1 1 6 -- 7 1 2 —- 3 2 9 -- 11 TOTAL 239 257 4 500 219 250 34 503 202 204 6 412 660 711 44 1.415 “Incomplete information made it impossible to assign these individuals to another cell. 197 TABLE K.1. APPENDIX K PREKINDERGARTEN READINESS SCREENING DEVICE LPRSD) FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS--SEPTEMBER7OCTOBER OF 1978, 1979, AND 1980. RACIAL ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF CHILDREN SCREENED USING THE . Children Screened 11 % hi f N' N % American Indian or Alaskan Native or Native American 3 0'6 0 0'0 0 0’0 3 0'2 White, Not of Latino or Latino or Hispanic 78 15.6 84 16.7 69 16.7 231 16.3 Black, Not of Latino or Hispanic Origin 386 77.2 378 75.1 319 77.4 1083 76.5 Asian or Pacific Islanders 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.2 2 0.1 Other* 6 1.2 2 0.4 0 0.0 8 0.6 Total 500 100.0 503 100.0 412 99.9** 1415 99.9** *No race data was provided for these individuals. **Due to rounding error. 198 APPENDIX L TABLEIL.1. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FROM THE 1970 CENSUS SHOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES AND HOMES IN THE TITLE I ATTENDANCE AREA OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SAGINAW. MICHIGAN. Characteristic Range Range of Family Income $4,000 to $10,400 Percent of Families Below Poverty Level 11% to 45% Percent of Parents Having a High School Education 18% to 40% Percent of Parents Having a College Education ’ 1.1% to 6.7% Percent of Children from Homes in a Husband-Wife Household 38% to 82% Percent of Children from Homes Where the Head of the Household is Female 14% to 5Q% 199 APPENDIX M FIGURE M.l. SPEARMAN-BROWN SPLIT HALF FORMULA FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL TEST RELIABILITY FROM PARTS OF UNEQUAL LENGTH R -‘pl;§+ 4 Pq(l-r§E— -r 2 Pg (l-r ) Legend Estimated reliability of total test Proportion of total testing time taken up by part P PrOportion of total testing time taken up by part q Correlation between parts P and q H10 "0:0 200 APPENDIX N TABLE N.l. PASSING EACH PRSD TEST ITEM. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF AN AGE GROUP Age Group (Years-Months) PRSD Item Behavior Requested 4-0 or 4-1 to 4-4 to 4-7 or Number less 4-3 4-6 more N‘BSS N=37l N=344 11:33"1 1 Say age N 166 209 197 187 % 46.76 56.33 57.26 55.98 2 Say name N 202 216 234 251 % 56.90 58.22 68.02 75.14 3 Point to neck N 245 281 265 287 % 69.01 75.74 77.03 85.92 4 Identify body part N 87 104 139 137 . % 24.05 28.03 40.40 41.01 5 Tell function of bodypart N 40 58 91 89 % 11.26 15.63 26.45 26.64 6 Pick up same color N 220 266 272 268 % 61.97 71.69 79.06 80.23 7 Pick up named color N 168 191 212 218 % 47.32 51.48 61.62 65.26 8 Say color of object N 118 137 163 182 % 33-39 35-92 47.38 54-49 9 Say color of object N 153 163 202 208 % 43.09 43.93 58.72 62.27 10 Count to five N 111 126 144 158 % 31.26 33.96 41.86 47.30 11 Give me four blocks N 39 41 69 83 % 10.98 11.05 20.05 24.85 12 Say number of blocks N 112 143 159 167 % 31.54 38.54 46.22 50.00 13 Pick up blocks N 278 293 290 282 % 78.30 78.97 84.30 84.43 14 Walk backwards N 72 84 91 107 % 20.28 22.64 26.45 32.03 201 202 TABLE N.1 (CONTINUED) Age Group (Years-Months) PRSD Item Behavior Requested 4—0 or 4-1 to 4-4 to 4—7 or Number less 4-3 4—6 more N=355 N=371 N=344 N=334 15 Carry out 3-part command N 44 51 74 77 % 12.39 13.74 21.51 23.05 16 Tell what books are for N 163 195 227 229 % 45.91 52.56 65.98 68.56 17 Draw cross given model N 23 96 102 126 % 1 .92 25.87 29.65 37.72 18 Hop after demonstrated N 183 211 229 229 % 51.54 56.87 66.56 68.56 19 Throw ball five feet N 261 282 261 270 . % 73.52 76.01 75.87 80.83 20 Point to shape like a wheel N 244 261 249 260 % 68.73 70.35 72.38 77.84 21 Point to shape like a tent N 168 206 197 212 % 47.32 55.52 57.26 63.47 22 Point to shape like a stick N 199 240 223 242 % 56.05 64.69 64.82 72.45 23 Tell which is bigger N 192 228 219 229 % 54.08 61.45 63.66 68.56 24 Draw diamond given model N 43 70 99 119 % 12.11 18.86 28.77 35.62 25 Tell nursery rhyme, song, N 53 54 79 75 poem % 14.92 14.55 22.96 22.45 26 Say yellow jello N 167 207 192 220 % 47.04 55.79 55.81 65.86 27 More than one word response N 99 87 92 104 % 27.88 23.45 26.74 31.13 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Almy. M. Young Children's Thinki_g New York: Teacher' 3 Coééege Press. Teacher' 8 College. Columbia University. 19 Anastasi. A. Standardized Ability Testing. In P. H Mussen (Ed..). Handbook of Research Methods in Child Develop- ment. New York{_WlIey. I97 . Anderson. R.. Miles. M.. and Matheny. P. Communicative Evaluation Chart. Cambridge. MA: Educators Publishing Services, Inc., 1964. Banham. K.M. Quick Screening Scale 9: Mental Development. Munster. IN: Psychological Affiliates. 1963. Bayley, N. Bayley Scales 9£_Infant Development. New York: The Psychological Corp.. 1969. Beery. K.E. and Buktenica. N. A. Developmental Test Visual- Mogor Integration. Chicago, IL: Follett Publishing Co., 197 Bennett, E.L.. Diamond, M.C., Kretch, D. and Rosenzweig. M.R. Chemical and Anatomical Plasticity of the Brain. SCienCe. 196u, 1&6, 610-6190 Bloom. B.S. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. New York: Wiley. 1964. Borg, W.R. and Gall. M.D. Educational Research: An Introduction (2nd ed.). rNew York: David McKay Com- pany, Inc., 1971. Bruner. J. S. The Process of Education. New York: Vintage Books. 1960. Buros, 0.x. (Ed.). The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, N_ J.: Gryphonfi Press. 1965. Buros, 0.K. (Ed.). The Seventh Mental Measurement Yearbook (Vol. 1 & 2). Highland Park. N.J.: Gryphon Press. 1972. Buros, (m .). The Eighth Mental Measurement Yearbook (V02.K 1 & 2). Highland Park. N.J.: Gryphon Press. 197 203 209 Caldwell, E.M. The Preschool Inventor . Princeton. N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1967. Cattell, P. Measurement 9: Intelli ence 9; Infants and Ygung Children.Trev. ed.5. New York: The Psychological Corp., 1960. Cazden, C.B. Evaluation of Learning In Preschool Education: Early Language Develo ment. In B.S. Bloom, J.T. Hastings, and G.F. Madaus (Eds...HBndbook‘gn Formative and Summative Evaluation 9; Student Learning. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. 1971. Chapman. J.E. and Lazar. J.E. .The Present Status and Future Needs in Day Care Research. Washington, D.C.: Education Resources Division Capitol Publications. Inc., 1971. Danger. V.A.. Lyon. T.M.. and Gerber, M.F. Daberon: A Screening Device for School Readiness. Portland. OR: Daberon Research; 1972. Doll, E.A.. Preschogl Attainment Record. Circle Pines. MN: American Guidance Service. 1965. Doll, E.A. Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 1965. Dowley. E.M. Early Childhood Education. In R.L. Ebel and V.H. Noll (Eds.)‘Encyc10pedia 9: Educational Research (nth ed.). New York: MacMillan Company, 1969. Ebel, R.L. Estimation of the Reliability of Ratings. Psychometrika. 1951. 16 (h), #07-424. Fallon. B.J. (Ed.). 39 Innovative Programs in Early Child- hood Education. Belmont. CA: Lear Siegler. Inc.7 Fearon Publishers. 1973. Frank, L.K. Fundamental Needs of the Child. Mental m: 1938: Q: 353‘379. Frankenburg, w.K. and Dodds. J.E. Denver Developmental Screening Test. Denver. CO: University of Colorado Medical Center, 1969. Gagne, R.M. The Conditions 9: Learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt. Rinehart. and Winston. 1970. Gesell, A.. et al. The First Five Years g; Life: A Guide 39 the Study 9: the Preschool Childa New York: Harper, 1955. 205 Gesell, A., et a1. Infant and Child lg the Culture 9: Today: The Guidance g; ngelopment lg Home and Nursery School. New York: Harper, 1943. Gesell Institute of Human Development. Preschool Test. Lumberville. PA. 1979. Goodenough. F.L.. Maurer, K.M.. and Van Wagenen, M.J. Minnesota Preschool Scale. Minneapolis: Educa- tional Test Bureau. 1950. Goodland. J.I., Klein. M.F.. and Novotney, J.M. Early Schooling ln_the United States. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1973. Goodwin. W.L. and Driscoll, L.A. Handbook 9: Measurement and Evaluation lg Early Childhood Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1980. Grotberg. E.H. Review 9: Research 1965 39 1969 (0E0 Pamphlet. 6108-135. Research and Evaluation Office Project Head Start, Office of Economic Opportunity, June. 1969. Guilford. J.P. Psychometric Methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1955. Guilford, J.P. and Fruchter. B. Fundamentgl Statistics lg Psychology and Education (5th ed.7. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1973. Hall. E.T. The Hidden Qimengion. New York: Doubleday and Company. 1966. Hall, E.T. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1965. Hess, R.D. and Bear, R.M. (Eds.). Early Education. Chicago: Aldine. 1968. Hoepfner, R.. Stern, 0.. and Nummedal. S.G. (Eds.). CSE- ECRC Preschool Kindergarten Test Evaluations. Los Angeles: UCLA Graduate School of Education. 1971. Horrocks, J.E. and Schoonover, T.I. Measurement for Teachers. Columbus, OH: Merrill. 1968. Horst. P. Estimating Total Test Reliability from Parts of Unequal Length. Educational and Psychological Measure- men;: 1951: ll (3): 388‘3710 Hunt, J.McV. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald Press. 1961. 206 Isaac. S. Handbook lp Research and Evaluation. San Diego. CA: Knapp. 1971. . Ilg. F.L. and Ames. L.B. School Readlness: Behavior Tests Used gp the Gessell lnstitute. New York: Harper and Row. Publishers. 1965. Johnson. 0.G. and Bommarito. J.W. Epsts and Measurements lp_Child Development: A_Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1971. Kamii. C.K. Evaluation of Learning in Preschool Education: Socio—emotional. Perceptual-motor. and Cognitive Develop- ment. In B.S. Bldom. J.T. Hastings. and G.F. Madaus (Eds.). Handbook pp Formative gpg Summative Evaluation pl Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com— pany. 1971- Kirk. S.A. Early Education pl the Mentally Retarded. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 1958. Lazerson. M. Social Reform and Early Childhood Education: Some Historical Perspectives. In R.H. Anderson and H.G. Shane (Eds.). lg the Twig lg Bent: Readings lp Early Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1971. Lazar. I. and Darlington. R. Lasting Effects After Preschool. (Summary Report. DHEW Publication No.[0HDS7 79-30179). Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1979. Lesiak. W.J.. Jr. Developmental Tasks for Kindergarten Readiness. (Archives of Behavioral Science Monograph No. 525. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Company. Inc., 1978. Maitland. S.. Nadeau. J.B.E.. and Nadeau. G. Early School Screening Practices. Journal pl_Learning Disabilities. 1974. Z 10). 55-58- Marascuilo. L.A. and McSweeney. M. Nonparametric and Dis- tribution—Free Methodg for the Social Sciences. Monterey. CA: Brooks/Cole Publ1sHing Company. Mehrens. W.A. and Lehmann. I.J. Measurement and gyaluation lp Education ang Psychology. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Inc., 1973. National School Public Relations Association (Ed.). Egg- school Breakthrough: What Works lp Early Childhood Education. (Education USA Special Report) Arlington. VA: Editor. 1970. 207 National School Public Relations Association (Ed.). Earl Childhood Education: Current Trends lg School Polic1es and Pro rams. (Education USA Special Report) Arlington. VA: Ed1tor. 1973. Osborn. D.K. Early Child Education lg Historical Perspec- tive. Athens. GA: _EducationIAssociates. 19757 Preschool Education Pays Off For Poor Students. Study Says. Education USA, December 22. 1980. pp. 129: 132. Preschool Programs Cost EffectivalRiles Says. Re ort pg Education Research. December 10. 1980. pp. 9-E0. Preschool Research Shows Lasting Benefit. Report pg Education Research. December 24. 1980, p. 2. Prescott. G.A.. Balow. I.H.. Hogan. T.P.. and Farr. R.C. Metropolitan Achievement Tests: Teacher's Manual for ggministering and Inteppreting. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Inc., 197 . Quick. A.D.. Little. T.L.. and Campbell. A.A. MEMPHIS Com- .ppehensive Developmental Scalp. Belmont. CA: Fearon Publishers. Inc., 1979. Remmers. H.H. Rating Methods in Research on Teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.). Handbook pl Research pg Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1963. Sears. P.S. and Dowley. E.M. Research on Teaching in the Nursery School. In N.L. Gage (Ed.). Handbook pg Research lg Teaching. Ctficago: Rand McNally. 1963. Shane. H.G. The Renaissance of Early Childhood Education. In R.H. Anderson and H.G. Shane (Eds.). gpipgg Twig lg Bent: Readin 3 lg Early Childhood Education. Boston: Houghton M1ff11n Company. 1971. Sheridan. M.D. The vaeIOpmental Progress of Infants and Young ChildrEfiT London: H.M.S.O.. 19687 Slater. SHJ. Applied Performance Testing: Typology. Advances. Limitations. and Examples. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa— tional Research Association. Boston. 1980. Slosson, L. Slosson Intelligence Test. East Aurora. NY: Slosson Education Publications. 1964. Spock, B. Common Sense Book pl Baby and Child Care. New York: DuelIT Sloan, and Pearce, I956. 208 Stanley. J. C. (Ed. ). Preschool Programs for the Disadvan— taged: Five Experimental Approaches to Early Childhood Egucation. Balt1more. MD: The John Hopkins Un1versity Press. 1972. Stolz. L.M.. et a1. Father Relations pl War-Born Children. Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press. l9SU. Stutsman. R. Merrill-Palmer Scale. Detroit: Merrill- Palmer School.il963. The Ups and the Downs of Preschool Intervention. Education USA. May 12. 1980. p. 285. Walker. W. A Readiness Test for Disadvantaged Preschool Children. (om mw Publication No. ZOE772- -9) Washington. D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Off1ce. 1972. Whitely. S. and Davis. R.V. The Nature of Objectivity With the Rasch Model. Journal pl Educational Measurement. 1974. 11. 163-178. Winer. B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Desigg (2nd ed. ). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1971. Wolfe. D.A. and Hollander. M. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. New York: Wiley. 1973. . Zehrback. R.R. Comprehensive Identification Process. Uni- versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Institute for Child Behavior and Development. 1975. Zeitlin. S. Kindergarten Screenigg: Early ldentification of Potentia Higg Risk Learners. Spr1ngfield. IL: Thomas. 1976. Zimmerman. I.. Steiner. V.. and Evatt. R. Preschool Language Scale. Columbus. OH: Merrill. 1969.