Chapter 10

Tools for Assessment and Decision Making

“Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”

—Albert Einstein

Having discussed the essential elements of the IEP in terms of the intent of IDEA 2004 in Part One of the book, it is now time to translate the law's intent into practical application. Because this is often easier said than done, as our examples of poor practice illustrate, in this chapter we attempt to provide guidelines for bridging the gap between theory (the law) and practice (designing effective IEPs). This chapter also offers readers a “guided tour” through the remaining chapters of the book.

We consider the following to be prerequisites for writing appropriate, individualized, and measurable annual goals and short-term objectives that lead to effective educational service delivery:

As noted earlier, it is well beyond the scope of this book to provide disability-specific information or specific research-based methods to address student needs, but references for several excellent resources that address issues related to these topics may be found in Appendix B.

Assessing Appropriately

Because determining a student's strengths and weaknesses is integral to writing appropriate annual goals and short-term objectives, it is important to consider a few points about assessment. Although standardized assessment procedures are clearly preferable for determining level of functioning in some skill areas, they are not always appropriate (or even available) for many of the skill areas addressed in this book (for example, theory of mind). In such cases, one must consider other options, some of which will be discussed here.

Although standardized assessment procedures are clearly preferable for determining level of functioning in some skill areas, they are not always appropriate for many of the skill areas addressed in this book.

Another consideration in assessment is that for many students with disabilities, knowledge does not always equal application. For example, a student with anger-management issues may be able to recite exactly what to do in an anger-provoking situation but may not be able to apply those strategies in the heat of the moment. Likewise, a child with an anxiety disorder may be able to skillfully describe how to solve the problems presented on a formal test of problem solving, thus achieving a test score within normal limits, yet evidence very poor problem-solving skills when highly stressed in a real-world situation.

In recent years, several excellent informal assessment instruments have been designed to capture hard-to-measure skills within the domains of functional communication and social interaction. One such example is the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, and Risi, 2002). This instrument involves the administration of several tasks and the subsequent coding of behaviors in categories such as shared enjoyment in interaction, conversation, and coordination of eye contact with other means of communication. Although the ADOS was originally designed as a tool to aid in the diagnosis of ASD—because it provides an excellent measure of functional communication—it can also be used to measure progress in communication and social areas for individuals with other disabilities. Executive function skills can also be measured using rating scales. One instrument to measure functional performance is the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, and Kenworthy, 2000). This scale, which has both parent and teacher versions, can measure eight individual executive functions. Hence, it not only can identify specific areas of need but also can measure functional progress within the subscale.

We'd like to caution the reader here against becoming an “assessment snob”—preferring only norm-based or formal assessment measures. For one thing, multidimensional skills such as those subsumed under the rubric of pragmatic communication, or those involved in theory of mind, do not lend themselves to static, one-dimensional formal assessment. For another, for some skills, formal measures may actually obfuscate, rather than clarify deficits. For example, many children with ASD score well on tests of word retrieval such as the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT), only to have significant word-retrieval problems in the heat of the cognitively demanding moment in a conversational exchange. Hence, reliance on the EOWPVT test score would mask the students' functional word retrieval difficulty. Indeed, formal assessment may not even be possible for students at the less-able end of the autism spectrum continuum or for those with significant cognitive challenges stemming from other conditions. In such cases, informal assessment is usually the only reasonable way to determine functional performance.

Before leaving this topic, let's consider the concept of dynamic assessment, a term coined by Vygotsky in his classic book Mind in Society (1978). It has particular relevance for multidimensional areas of impairment such as pragmatics, theory of mind, and EF. Unlike traditional, context-free assessments that measure fully developed (all or nothing) competencies, dynamic assessment takes into account contextual elements in determining the level of (ongoing) skill development (Bodrova and Leong, 2007). By focusing on the level of skill development, one gains information about the degree of assistance the student needs and also the amount of progress he or she is making toward independent performance. This type of assessment seems better suited to the evaluation of complex, multifaceted skills. Furthermore, it captures the essence of the way in which the short-term objectives progress from greater to lesser assistance toward the accomplishment of the annual goal.

To summarize, all things considered (especially the individualized needs of the student!), use of a variety of assessment measures ranging from formal to informal, and including dynamic assessment procedures, are likely to give a more accurate and comprehensive picture of a student's functioning level and his or her functional performance in more complex, multifaceted domains. Finally, we advocate that educators and clinicians view all assessment as a dynamic and ongoing process, and also that they be mindful of the ways in which severe cognitive and social-cognitive challenges can compromise the assessment process and cloud test results.

Determining Priority Educational Needs

In cases of mild disability it may be possible to design annual goals and short-term objectives for all of the deficit areas requiring attention; however, in most cases, this is not possible because of the number of problem areas that require remediation. Because the IEP is intended to address the goals and objectives that the school hopes to accomplish in a given year—hence the term annual goals—an important part of IEP decision making requires that teams prioritize those areas of functioning that need immediate redress, putting others on temporary hold. In some cases, the process of establishing priorities is relatively easy. This is particularly true when dealing with behaviors that pose a danger to the student or his or her classmates, because such behaviors, by their very nature, demand immediate attention. Most of the time, however, the task of determining priority educational needs is more an art form than a scientific endeavor.

The following general guidelines will help IEP teams determine the priority educational needs that will serve as the foundation for the annual goals and short-term objectives for students:

Operating according to these guidelines isn't rocket science, as the saying goes. What it is, however—and what may be in shorter supply than rocket science—is common sense, an appreciation for developmental considerations, and sensitivity to the role of functionality and relevance in the lives of students with disabilities. Form 10.1, Priority Educational Need Analysis, provides the reader with a systematic approach for establishing priority educational needs on which to base annual goals. This user-friendly rating scale takes into account the following parameters:

NumberTable

Attending to the IEP Essential Elements

It should be eminently clear by now that the essential elements of the IEP found in IDEA 2004 and covered in Part One are critical to appropriate education and effective service delivery. We now offer Form 10.2, The IEP Essential Elements Checklist. This form is intended to fulfill two important functions:

NumberTable
NumberTable

Overview of Remaining Chapters

The following five chapters of the book are our attempt to translate theory into practice. Hence, we take the information presented in Part One and apply it to the actual practice of writing annual goals and short-term objectives for students with ASD, ADD/ADHD, NLD, S/LI, and ED. Our aim in these chapters is twofold:

Each of the next five chapters is devoted to a specific area of functioning, and each contains sample annual-goal and short-term-objective templates corresponding to subcategories within the general content area. Each chapter includes the same elements:

We use the term template to underscore that the sample annual goals and short-term objectives are offered only to demonstrate how the internal elements of each fit together, and how each objective systematically leads to the annual goal. In keeping with the critical importance of individualization, we do not offer the sample goals and objectives as finished products to be indiscriminately applied to students who manifest the deficit areas covered by them. Having said that, if after taking into account the individual needs of specific students it is found that particular goals and objectives, as written, do apply, by all means use them. In most cases, however, it will be necessary to adjust criterion and prompt levels, as well as specific content to suit individual needs and circumstances. Hence, the reader should construe the sample annual-goal and short-term-objective templates as the “builder's models” discussed in the construction metaphor in the Introduction. Moreover, in keeping with the generic nature of these templates, we use the impersonal designation student, in place of an actual name. Finally, although useful teaching resources for each of the content areas addressed in Part Two may be found in Appendix B, we have included general teaching tips and strategies, consisting of a potpourri of ideas, delivered in “stream of consciousness” fashion in each of the next five chapters.

Wrapping Up the Main Points