Jessica Kemmeur EDU 722 Assignment 4: Assessment October 21, 2012

Standardized assessment tools have different purposes. One of the purposes for standardized assessment is for the use of diagnostic achievement. Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt (2013) maintain, Norm-referenced and standards-referenced achievement tests are designed in consultation with subject matter experts and are believed to reflect national curricula and national curricular trends in general (p. 133). Multi-skill achievement tests include subtests in various subjects. At times, these assessments may not give an in-depth look at a students performance, and a testing examiner may need to use a specific skill assessment tool. This paper will analyze the Test of Early Mathematics Ability 2nd Edition (TEMA-2). Purpose: The purpose of using a standardized mathematics assessment may be to screen students who are not performing or meeting grade level benchmarks. The TEMA-2 is a screening tool used to help identify students who may be ahead or behind their peers in math, identify a students strengths and weakness in math, and document a students progress in math (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990). The TEMA-2 looks at informal mathematics concepts such as counting and calculation, as well as formal mathematics concepts such as convention, and number facts. Ginsburg and Baroody (1990) state, The TEMA-2 provides such information with respect to both formal mathematics (i.e., the arithmetic skills and concepts the child is learning in school) and informal mathematics (i.e., the important notions and procedures acquired outside the context of schooling). Quality of Directions or Procedures: The manual for the TEMA-2 is easy to follow. It is divided up into chapters that begin with the rationale for assessment, followed by administration and scoring

procedures. The chapter on administration clearly lists the basal (entry points) and ceilings (ending points). The manual lists the administration guidelines and gives specific instructions for administering items. The wording that the examiner is required to say is capitalized. An example of administering instructions is as follows: 3. COUNTING BY ONES: 1 TO 5 (informal) Procedure: Hold up five fingers and say, WOULD YOU COUNT THESE FINGERS? If a child is silent, say, COUNT THEM FOR ME. ONE [pause] GO NOW. Scoring: To pass, the child must count from one to five in the correct order. (Ginsburg & Baroody, 1990). Examiners score the items on a scoring sheet that corresponds with the testing manual. Types of Scoring: The student performance record is recorded with the total raw score. This score is converted into a standard score (quotient), and percentile based on the students chronological age. Included with the quotient score is a descriptor (poor up to very superior). Also included in the student profile record are sections on testing conditions, interpretations and recommendations, and other test results. The test authors caution the examiner in interpreting scores. They say, It is emphasized here that additional study of examinees related scholastic behaviors is necessary to determine more about their performance and abilities (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990). Test scores and norms are only a measurement index (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990). The students scores may not accurately represent the students skills, but should be used a reference point. Technical Characteristics: Chapter Four in the TEMA-2 manual covers the development of the assessment. According to the test authors, The original TEMA was standardized on 617 children residing in 12 states (California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New York, North Carolina,

Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin) in 1982) (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990). In 1989, the test was standardized on 470 additional children in 19 different states. So the TEMA-2 is a normative sample consisting of 896 cases in 27 states (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990). At the time of this paper, the TEMA-2 has already been replaced with a third edition of the assessment. Test Reliability was determined using internal consistency, test-retest, and standard error of measurement (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990). Validity of test results was considered through content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity. The TEMA-2 was also compared to other school abilities tests in separate studies to measure school achievement to identify students experiencing difficulty in academics (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990). Overall Evaluation The TEMA-2 was a decent assessment tool to screen students for difficulty in mathematics skills when used in conjuncture with other assessments and classroom observation. The TEMA-2 has been replaced with a third edition (TEMA-3) in 2003 (http://www.proedinc.com/customer/productView.aspx?ID=2891). The assessment breaks down math concepts and examines where the student is having difficulty in the subject. The assessment package includes a book titled, Assessment Probes and Instructional Activities (Ginsburg, 1990). This book includes instructional activities and learning probes that correlate with assessment questions. The administration and scoring of the TEMA-2 is fairly easy for an experienced test examiner to give the first time. An examiner with limited testing experience will benefit from reading the testing manual and examining all of the testing components before

administering the assessment. The assessment also appears to give reliable and valid test results that compare the student to normative peers. As with all assessments, the examiner must take into consideration the testing conditions and the examinees behavior during assessment.

Part 2 Summary of the TEMA-2 Application The following is an example of an evaluation report that our district uses for student evaluations for special education. The students name and information has been changed to protect privacy. The student was being evaluated as part of a triennial review. The WIAT-III was the first assessment used. The students parents had concerns regarding the students performance in math this year. The student also scored just below average on the math subtests within the WIAT-III. The TEMA-2 was the assessment used to gain more knowledge on the students math abilities. The students classroom teacher said that the student is performing in the lower range of her class, but is not behind. She is not overly concerned yet regarding the students math progress. She said that he would benefit from the intervention groups that will be starting this month.

Achievement Evaluation

Copy of report provided to parent: ___________________ Date

Name: John Smith Age: 7.9 Grade: 3 _____ Initial Evaluation _____ Annual Review

Date of Birth: December 1, 2004 Dates Tested: October 20 & 21, 2012 Evaluator: Jessica Kemmeur _ __X___ Re-Evaluation _____ Other: ______

Background Information: John is a 7 year old, 3rd grade student at ABC School. John is being reevaluated as part of a triennial review. John was last assessed his kindergarten year. Please refer to report dated October 1, 2009. Currently, John qualifies for special education services as a student with Autism. John receives weekly special education consultation and writing support. John has ed tech support within the classroom to assist with behavior. Johns mother has expressed concern in the difficulty that John has been experiencing in math this year. Observation During Testing: John was evaluated on two separate sessions that lasted about 20-45 minutes each. He came with the examiner willingly and was cooperative during the all of the testing sessions. During some of the math subtests, John demonstrated fidgeting behavior. The writing subtests were the most difficult for John. He was offered breaks and was able to get up and move during the assessment. John was able to sustain testing longer during morning sessions.

Tests Administered: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - Third Edition (WIAT-III) The Test of Early Mathematics Ability - 2nd Edition (TEMA-2)

Test Results: The WIAT -III is a comprehensive, individually administered test for assessing achievement in reading, writing, mathematics, and oral language. An average Standard Score (SS) is between 85-115. Johns assessment results are as follows: Listening Comprehension: This subtest looks at receptive vocabulary where the student is asked to point to the picture that best illustrates the meaning of each word he hears. It also measures the ability to make inferences about, and remember details from oral sentences and discourse. The student listens to passages and orally responds to comprehension questions. John received a SS of 122, which is in the above average range. Early Reading Skills: This subtest looks at several areas deemed important for developing reading skills, naming letters, letter-sound correspondence, phonological awareness, and word reading comprehension. Students are asked to name letters of the alphabet, identify and generate rhyming words, identify words with the beginning and ending sounds, blend sounds, match sounds with letters and letter blends, and match written words with pictures that illustrate their meaning. John received a SS of 100, which is in the average range. Reading Comprehension: This subtest measures untimed reading comprehension of various

types of text including fictional stories and informational stories. The student is asked to respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions. John received a SS of 92, which is in the average range. Math Problem Solving: This subtest measures untimed math problem solving skills in the following domains: basic concepts, everyday applications, geometry, and algebra. Students provide oral and pointing responses. John received a SS of 84, which is just below the average range. He was able to answer math problems that involved counting, identifying numbers, and reading graphs. He had more difficulty with math vocabulary, such as more, and patterns. He had difficulty with time and money questions. Alphabet Writing Fluency: This subtest measures the ability to write letters of the alphabet within a 30-second time limit. Students may write letters in any order, in cursive or print, in uppercase or lowercase. John received a SS of 92, which is in the average range. Sentence Composition: This subtest contains two components. The first measures sentence formulation skills. The student combines two or three sentences into one sentence that preserves the meaning of the original sentence. The second component measures sentence formulation skills and written syntactic ability. The student is asked to write one sentence that uses a target word with appropriate context. John received a SS of 81, which is in the below average range. He had difficulty coming up with complete thoughts for some of his sentences. He had difficulty thinking of sentences. There was anxiety around this subtest, but he was able to persevere with a break and a reinforcer. Word Reading: This subtest measures speed and accuracy of decontextualized word recognition. The student reads aloud from a list of words that increase in difficulty. John received a SS of 99, which is in the average range. Pseudo-word Decoding: This subtest measures the ability to decode nonsense words. The student reads aloud from a list of pseudo-words that increase in difficulty. John received a SS of 90, which is in the average range. Numerical Operations: This subtest measures untimed, written math calculation skills in the following domains: basic operations with integers, geometry, algebra, and calculus. John received a SS of 82, which is in the below average range. John was not able to identify the math symbols for plus and minus. He had difficulty with subtraction and adding multiple numbers. Oral Reading Fluency: This subtest measures speed, accuracy, fluency, and prosody of contextualized oral reading. The student reads passages aloud, and then orally responds to comprehension questions after each passage. Fluency is calculated as the average number of words read correctly per minute. Comprehension questions are asked only to encourage reading for meaning; comprehension performance is not score quantitatively. John received a SS of 110, which is in the average range.

Spelling: This subtest measures written spelling of letter sounds and single words. The student hears each letter sound within the context of a word and each word within the context of a sentence, and then the student writes the target letter sound or word. John received a SS of 87, which is in the average range. Math Fluency - Addition: This subtest measures the speed and accuracy of a students math addition calculations. The student solves written addition problems within a 60 second time limit. John received a SS of 82, which is in the below average range. John was concerned about being timed. He counted up for all of his responses and did not show fluency. Math Fluency - Subtraction: This subtest measures the speed and accuracy of a students math subtraction calculations. The student solves written subtraction problems within a 60 second time limit. John received a SS of 83, which is in the below average range.

The TEMA-2 is an assessment that is designed to measure a students competence in the mathematic areas of knowledge convention, number facts, calculation skill, and base ten concepts. John scored a SS of 88, which is in the average range. John was successful in counting tasks, and addition facts that he could use his fingers or required manipulatives. He had more difficulty with subtraction, and math fluency, especially if it involved mental math. Summary of evaluation results and diagnostic impressions: Johns assessment scores on the WIAT-III ranged from below average to average. His relative strengths include oral reading, and listening comprehension. John had difficulty in subtests that required written responses, due to his fine motor delays. He would struggle to write the letters of words. John also had some difficulty in the math subtests, scoring slightly below average. His strengths included counting and number recognition. His difficulties included math vocabulary such as more, less, add, subtract. He performed low on math fluency assessments as he would take the time to count up or down on the tasks. He expressed dislike at being timed, and when he thought he was being timed, his anxiety level rose. Johns performance on the TEMA-2 was in the average range. He showed a solid understanding of numbers and counting. He had more difficulty with mental math problems, and subtraction. John also showed difficulty with math vocabulary and concepts such as more and problems within stories. The TEMA-2 also includes mental math. This is an area that John also had difficulty in, as he wanted to count up, or draw tallies/use his fingers. Educational Recommendations to accommodate the students educational needs: The IEP Team should consider the results of this evaluation, along with the result of the intellectual evaluation, in determining Johns eligibility for special education services. John would benefit from math drill tasks to work on addition and subtraction fluency. Pre-teach John math vocabulary such as more, less, addition, subtraction. Teach John strategies for mental math problem solving. Check to make sure John understands math directions. John would benefit from consistent oral planning or mapping during stories for writers workshop. Allow John to take motor breaks during writing assignments.

_________________________ Jessica Kemmeur Special Education Teacher

References: Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (1990). Test of early mathematics ability examiner's manual. (2 ed.). Austin, TX: Pro.Ed. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education. (12 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cenage Learning.