Different Tests

All Children Can Learn

The Different Types of Tests

Tests for Formal Assessments

Formal assessments are norm referenced and validated with use on 1,000 plus kids (if the tests are any good) and with different ethnic groups. In other words, they give the test to 1,000 kids in the same age group and find the absolute middle in grades. That becomes the "norm". Usually that "smack in the middle point" will mean a norm or "mean" of 100. Some have a different mean. What is important for parents to realize is that when you see 100 you are not thinking"100 per cent, gosh that means perfect". That is the only reference in grading we usually saw growing up in school. In this case 100 really means half the kids did better than 100 and half the kids did worse. If your child performed within 15-17 points either better or lower than 100 that is in the "average" range. So if a child had a 85-115 that would still be average. 15 points either way would be called one "deviation". Two deviations is considered serious enough for concern. Of course if your child is two deviations ABOVE the mean it means he/she excels in that area. One example of the 100 mean is the I.Q. test. If your child tests out with a composite score or 100 that is smack-in-the-middle-average. If the score is 85-115 that is still average 9and our one deviation range of 15 points---get it? If your child's score is 70 or 130 you are looking at two deviations. Below 70 is considered the retardation range, over 130 is considered the gifted range.

Composite scores can be misleading on such tests. Taking a number of scores and finding an average can give a skewed picture of strengths and weaknesses. For instance, if you are a marvelous swimmer and make a high score in competition say 95, and a lousy runner who makes a score of 15, how can an average of the two scores, (55) have any possible importance? Always look at each subtest score individually, and get help for the low ones and encourage and enrich and build on those unusually high scores. This is where you discover a child's academic strengths as well as weaknesses.

Some tests, like a lot of subtests I have seen, have a mean of 10. That means the same as the above. Half did better, half did worse. If your child has more than 3 points off of 10, it can be a cause for concern. They go by "deviations". When the "mean" or Norm" is 10, a standard deviation is 3 points. If a child has 2 deviations in a subtest, it is cause for serious concern. Criterion Referenced Tests

Measures knowledge against certain criteria--such as knowledge of one area of language. These tests usually have more than one version and the tester will change the versions around with a student so they won't memorize the questions or tasks. These tests are good for planning instructional strategies and measuring progress.

Curriculum Based Measurements

Some of these tests are published by book manufacturers, some by a state's Department of Education, to measure knowledge in the general education curriculum. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills is an example.

Curriculum Based Assessment

This is an assessment without the use of formalized tests. The student is measured against the general curriculum to see if the deviation is enough to qualify for special education.

There is lots of missing information in this method when used exclusively. There are no clues as to why the student is not keeping up as you would get from WISC-III data or or other testing data. It is a new trend in special education and is apparently okay as long as it is not used exclusively. It should NOT be used as the only qualification method for learning disabilities. Understanding WHY a student is not keeping up is very important, and this type of assessment does not give that information.

All ways of assessing are important in their own way. Teacher assessment can be more subjective and should be only one part of any assessment. While it is an important component it should not be the sole means of testing. Objective, measurable testing should always be included.

You can read about the WISC-III here

Ó 2000, 2007 Judy Bonnell