Teachers' Ratings of the Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Assessment Methods

Abstract

General and special education teachers evaluated the acceptability of two psychoeducational assessment techniques, curriculum-based assessment (CBA) and published, norm-referenced tests (PNRT). Using the Assessment Rating Profile (ARP), teachers' ratings of a case study that presented data obtained using either CBA or PNRT methods were compared. Comparisons between the acceptability ratings of the CBA and PNRT conditions found that CBA was consistently rated as a more acceptable method of assessment than PNRT. In addition, the psychometric properties of the ARP were examined. The internal consistency of the ARP was.94 and the test-retest reliability was.93. The implications of using CBA with teachers and school psychologists are discussed.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tanya L. Eckert

Tanya L. Eckert is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Program at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. She is employed as a school psychologist for the Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22 and a research consultant for the Lehigh Valley Hospital. Her research interests include the acceptability of assessment procedures, alternative assessment procedures, and behavioral momentum.

Edward S. Shapiro

Edward S. Shapiro, PhD, is currently Professor and Coordinator, School Psychology Program at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He is also the current editor of School Psychology Review. His research interests include curriculum-based assessment, interventions for inclusion of students with SED in regular classrooms, and behavioral assessment.

J. Gary Lutz

J. Gary Lutz, EdD, is Professor of Education and currently chair of Lehigh University's department of Counseling Psychology, School Psychology, and Special Education. His research interests include linear statistical modeling and the development of data analytic computer applications.