A Comparison of School Psychologists' Acceptability, Training, and Use of Norm-Referenced, Curriculum-Based, and Brief Experimental Analysis Methods to Assess Reading

Abstract

This investigation compared the acceptability of three methods for assessing reading (i.e., norm-referenced assessment, curriculum-based assessment, brief experimental analysis), and explored how a new assessment methodology can gain acceptance as a useful and appropriate approach. Given that brief experimental analysis is a relatively new methodology, it is important to understand not only how it compares to other assessment methods, but also how level of training and use are related to acceptability of assessment methods. A total of 188 members of the National Association of School Psychologists participated, and were randomly assigned to one of the three assessment conditions. Participants read the case description for their assigned condition, and completed the Assessment Rating Profile-Revised (ARP-R; Eckert, Hintze, & Shapiro, 1999). Overall, the results of the study indicated that participating school psychologists rated curriculum-based assessment as more acceptable that either brief experimental analysis or norm-referenced assessment. In particular, participants highly endorsed curriculum-based assessment as helpful in the development of intervention strategies. Although acceptability ratings for brief experimental analysis and norm-referenced were lower and were not significantly different from each other, it should be noted that participants reported significantly less training in brief experimental analysis. For all conditions, reported training and use were significantly correlated. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sandra M. Chafouleas

Sandra M. Chafouleas, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology at the University of Connecticut. Her research interests include assessment and intervention in reading and the application of evidence-based strategies in the classroom. Dr. Chafouleas serves on the editorial board for the School Psychology Review.

T. Chris Riley-Tillman

T. Chris Riley-Tillman, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor with the School Psychology program at Temple University. His research interests involve the empirical study of the translation of research to practice, behavioral consultation, and the creation and implementation of academic and behavioral interventions. In addition to his work at Temple University, Dr. Riley-Tillman consults on a weekly basis with a local school district.

Tanya L. Eckert

Tanya L. Eckert, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Syracuse University. Her research interests include examining procedures for assessing academic and behavioral problems, developing classroom-based interventions, and measuring the acceptability of assessment and intervention procedures. Dr. Eckert is an Associate Editor of the School Psychology Review.