Educational and Child Assessment Research Paper

This sample Educational and Child Assessment Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Free research papers are not written by our writers, they are contributed by users, so we are not responsible for the content of this free sample paper. If you want to buy a high quality research paper on any topic at affordable price please use custom research paper writing services.

Abstract

The assessment process is the professional procedure whereby a client’s question (or problem) is answered (or solved) using psychological theories and constructs that are modeled by test theoretical and statistical techniques and that result in reliable and valid instruments to measure the child’s achievement and typical behaviors. The goal is a valid description, categorization, prediction, and/or explanation of the child’s behaviors (e.g., cognitions, emotions, observable behaviors). These are the points of departure for answering the client’s question or deciding on the treatment for his or her behavioral problems.

Outline

1. Introduction
2. Four Goals of Assessment
3. A Comprehensive Definition of Assessment
4. Possibilities and Limitations in Assessing Children
5. Conclusion
6. Case Study: an Example of Educational and Child Assessment

1. Introduction

What is educational and child assessment? How do we assess the educational level of the child and his or her social behaviors and personality? In this research-paper, first the child as the subject of an assessment is described. Second, some specific issues in assessing children reported, four goals of assessment are distinguished, and assessment is provisionally defined. Third, assessment is comprehensively defined with the following three components:

• Implicit and explicit behavioral theories and constructs
• Test theory and statistical models to represent these theories and constructs
• Instruments for measuring these constructs

Fourth, the assessment process, which consists of compiling these three components and contains several steps from the client’s question or problem to the answer or solution, is described. This process includes the integration of diagnostic information and is subject to judgmental errors. Fifth, the possibilities and limitations of assessing achievement in children are described. Finally, the case of ‘‘Bryan’’ is reported using this research-paper’s definition of assessment.

Assessment in children is considered if cognitive, emotional, or behavioral problems are experienced by parents, teachers, the social environment, the institution, and/or the child himself or herself. The help of a professional assessor is sought when the implicit assessment of the parents, teachers, or child does not result in a satisfying solution. Assessment is the procedure whereby the assessor reformulates the client’s question (or problem) in psychological terms and answers the question (or solves the problem) using scientifically sound methods and information about the child and his or her environment.

In assessing children, one is confronted by special issues. First, parents, teachers, and/or the school or institution—but rarely the child—ask for an answer or for help. They may or may not agree about the presence and nature of the problem. For example, Lewis reported in 1999 that the manifestation of child depression is not shared by children, parents, and teachers. Second, given that children develop rapidly and are ‘‘moving targets,’’ how do we know whether the current behaviors are advanced or behind or whether they are normal or abnormal? An accurate picture of behavioral development is needed to make that determination. Third, assessing a child is a social process. The child must consider the assessment as a task and not as a game. Fourth, in (young) children, the nature and source of diagnostic information deviate from procedures used with adults, for example, because questionnaires cannot be used with children. Their behaviors must be observed, and parents, teachers, and peers must be interviewed.

2. Four Goals Of Assessment

Although assessment is not a psychological subdiscipline such as educational and developmental psychology, it depends largely on psychology’s knowledge base and methodology. Assessment refers to gathering and integrating relevant diagnostic information about the child’s behaviors so as to help him or her. In their definition of developmental assessment in 1999, Johnson and Sheeber stressed the child’s levels of cognitive, sensorimotor, language, and socioemotional behaviors in presenting the weak and strong sides of the child’s functioning. So, assessment contains deciding, problem solving, information gathering and integrating, helping, constructing a whole picture of the child’s behaviors, and using teachers, parents, peers, and the child as sources of information.

Assessment has four practical and scientific goals. The first goal is a valid description of the child’s cognitions, emotions, and behaviors (hereafter referred to as ‘‘behaviors’’) and of his or her social environment. The practitioner needs valid descriptions that enable him or her compare children, to describe the ‘‘natural’’ course of development of behaviors, and to establish the effects of social contexts on behaviors. This description is also needed to estimate the relationships between behaviors, to determine context conditions that influence the behaviors, and to describe and explain their course in time. The second goal is diagnosis, which refers to how experts assign the child to a category (e.g., the attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder category). This is relevant for the practitioner and the scientist. The quality of these assignments depends on the probability of false positives and false negatives and on differential diagnoses and comorbidity of two or more behavioral syndromes. The third goal is prediction, which allows the scientist to test a nomological network and enables the practitioner to predict the child’s future school achievement and social adaptation. The fourth goal is explanation, which is expressed in the hypotheses testing model of assessment. Explanation fits the dominating empirical– analytical approach in psychology.

Educational assessment is focused primarily on maximum performance. ‘‘Child assessment’’ in the title of this research-paper is viewed as measuring the child’s the socioemotional behavior and personality (or ‘‘typical performance’’). Intelligence, aptitude, and school achievements are called ‘‘achievements.’’

Intelligence refers to a general ability that includes reasoning, planning, problem solving, abstract thinking, understanding complex ideas, and learning from experience. It is not rote learning or school achievement, and it differs from creativity, character, and personality. Closely related to intelligence is aptitude, which refers to the ability to achieve in a professional field after specific training.

School achievement is related to both of these concepts but refers to what a child has achieved in a specific domain as a result of specific training or of attending a curriculum (e.g., reading or arithmetic at the primary school level, achievements at the high school or university level).

Socioemotional adaptation and personality refer to the maturity level, adaptation, lack of pathology, and individual differences in temperament and personality.

3. A Comprehensive Definition Of Assessment

Psychological assessment is a process of investigation and judging that results in a description, diagnosis, prediction, or explanation of the child’s (problem) ‘‘behaviors.’’ This process involves the following three components:

• Implicit and explicit psychological theories and constructs
• Test theory representing the constructs in a quantitative model
• Test construction using theories and their representation in the model

The three components are combined in the assessment process, with the assessor acting as the ‘‘composer.’’ The components and the process constitute the comprehensive definition of assessment used in this research-paper and are illustrated in the following subsections. The process consists of the composition of the three components. In this process, the assessor must integrate the diagnostic information and formulate advice. Information integration is known to be subject to errors.

3.1. Psychological Theories and Constructs in Assessing Children’s Achievements and Social Adaptation and Personality

Assessment involves content (i.e., behaviors) that is inferred from observations and that fits in a theory or network of constructs. The many theories and constructs for children’s achievements and personality are subsumed under the ‘‘three central orientations’’ or approaches used in psychology:

• The individual differences orientation
• The developmental orientation
• The (social) context orientation

The prototype of the individual differences orientation is Spearman’s approach to intelligence. Spearman insisted on the study of individual differences as being the main way in which to understand intelligence. He discovered or invented the ‘‘G’’ (general) factor because he assumed that one general dominating ability was present in all of the activities requiring mental effort. In 1998, Jensen characterized the G factor as a discovery that can be compared to Skinner’s laws of reinforcement and Thorndike’s law of effect.

Thurstone was the father of the multiple intelligence theories. He accepted the G factor but attached little significance to it. He viewed it as an abstract, ‘‘second-order factor’’ that ‘‘floated above’’ more interesting specific factors. Thurstone discovered or invented the seven ‘‘primary mental abilities’’: verbal comprehension, word fluency, number, space, associative memory, perceptual speed, and reasoning. Later, Guilford distinguished 120 factors, and Vernon created order among the many factors by formulating a hierarchical model with G on top and two broad groups of factors below: verbal–educational (e.g., English, history) and spatial–mechanical (e.g., automotive repair). Below these, he defined all kinds of specific factors.

The orientation of Spearman and the other authors is known as the psychometric approach to intelligence. This approach combines intelligence and aptitude because Thurstone’s multiple intelligence resulted in measuring aptitudes in the same way as the primary mental abilities.

The individual differences approach to school achievement does not aim to discover factors in school achievement; rather, it aims to determine specific content domains such as reading, arithmetic, biology, history, and science. Experts decide what knowledge must be acquired as a result of a curriculum, and other experts (e.g., from the Educational Testing Service [ETS]) design instruments that measure the level of acquisition of this knowledge and the children’s skills. The results can be used to describe individual differences in children’s achievements, the level reached by a class or school, and/or the degree of success of the curriculum and teachers. In addition, the individual differences approach has had a great impact on child assessment in measuring dimensions of personality, temperament, and social adaptation.

This approach served the goal of providing a reliable and valid description of the ranking order of a child’s achievement and personality. It helped to categorize children, for example, distinguishing cognitively retarded children from non-retarded children and distinguishing well-adapted children from not well-adapted children. The individual differences were used for predicting the future levels of achievements, school and vocational success, and levels of adaptation. The prototype of the developmental orientation is Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory. Piaget was convinced that to understand human cognition, one must study its historical and ontogenetic development (i.e., within the life course). His original question was an epistemological one: How could humankind change from biological beings to logical scientific ones? Piaget was not interested in individual differences or in fostering cognitive development by curricula or training. His subject was not a specific pupil but rather the epistemic subject, and the environmental stimuli were only an ‘‘aliment’’ (nourishment) to existing cognitive structures. Piaget’s theory was also applied to social adaptation (e.g., the development of levels of perspective taking). This developmental orientation implied that children’s stages of cognitive and social development had to be assessed. The stage concept hypothesized the existence of qualitatively different stages, ordered in time, that resulted in an inevitable and equilibrated final stage and that were characterized by sudden transitions. Empirical support for these claims was scarce and circumstantial.

This developmental orientation could be readily applied because many achievements at school (e.g., understanding simple scientific laws, understanding the concept of living beings, understanding economic laws) can be ordered along the Piagetian developmental dimension from prelogical thought to formal operational thought.

The impact of the developmental orientation on educational and child assessment is limited. Instruments for measuring stages were scarce, and measurements were more difficult to conduct and interpret than were the trait-like individual differences measurements.

The prototype of the contextual orientation to educational and child achievements is the attempt to influence achievements and socioemotional adaptation by curricula and programs. The latter are the independent variables that should change the dependent variables of intelligence, aptitude, and school achievements and socioemotional adaptation. This orientation is also considered to be the only road to describing and explaining behaviors by efficient causes, and it fits well the dominating empirical–analytical approach in psychology. The methodology was important, because the effect of independent variables could be revealed. It served the goal of determining the effect of training, intervention, and situational change (i.e., the context) on achievements and on social adaptation and personality. These independent variables of training and the like could vary from small manipulations in content and form of curricula to big programs such as Head Start. The dependent variables were either borrowed from the individual differences orientation (e.g., intelligence, aptitude, and school achievements; level of socioemotional adaptation) or constructed for a specific question (e.g., change in a memory retrieval strategy).

The context orientation was not aimed at constructing instruments for measuring children’s achievements and personality. This is possibly one reason why assessors underestimate the role of the context in understanding and explaining achievements and typical performance. However, the effects of schooling on intelligence and the effects of the cultural influence on generational growth of intelligence are present (e.g., in the Flynn effect).

Educational and child assessment is dominated by the individual differences approach, partly because this approach contained the simplest road to developing instruments for measuring maximum and typical performance in children.

3.2. Modeling Children’s Achievements and Socioemotional Adaptation

3.2.1. Modeling Individual Differences in Intelligence and Aptitudes

Spearman combined conceptual analysis and test-theoretical and statistical modeling. His two-factor theory implied that individual differences in true scores could be attributed to two factors: general (present in all tasks) and specific (present in tasks of the same type, e.g., verbal, spatial). His type of factor analysis was suited to discover a first strong factor (e.g., with the now obsolete centroid method).

Thurstone’s multiple intelligence construct required a search for a simple structure, that is, where items loaded high on one intended factor and low on all other factors. Orthogonal rotation and a specified number of factors were appropriate. This simple structure concept is usually applied to the measuring of aptitudes (e.g., in the differential aptitude test). Moreover, simple structure analysis is often applied in an exploratory way to reduce many items to a few dimensions.

Guilford needed a factor analysis that discovered many factors. He ‘‘forced’’ the items in these factors by using the Procrustes technique. The hierarchical model was developed to rank the many factors.

The analysis of dimensionality and of the quality of individual items is now supported by the many possibilities of modern test theory or item response theory (IRT). These theories contain models to test the unidimensionality of a scale and to weight the individual items according to their contributions to the total test score.

The analysis of school achievement was a matter of experts deciding what to measure and how to measure it. There was no effort to find any dimensionality for school achievement. Modern test theory (IRT) is however, used more and more to construct one-dimensional achievement tests.

3.2.2. Modeling Development of Achievements

Developmental psychology was characterized by Cronbach as an individual differences discipline, whereas Wohlwill tried to define a real developmental orientation. By considering the developmental orientation as an individual differences orientation, developmental research was biased toward investigating stability with the help of tests, that is, rank order and normative stability. Because researchers were looking for stability, they found it. However, there was never complete stability, even after correction for measurement error. The dominating message from this research is that achievements are relatively stable, predictable, and foreseeable. Moreover, the message is that achievements increase over time in the individual and sample because children grow older and because of the Flynn effect. Rarely is a developmental construct used to model the development of achievements in the course of time.

3.2.3. Modeling the Context of Achievements

The effects of manipulations of independent variables, interventions, programs, events, stimuli, and situations on achievements can readily be modeled with (multiple) analysis of variance (ANOVA). True and quasi-experimental designs have been well elaborated. This technique is appropriate for determining the existence of significant differences at the group level, and computing effect sizes, that give a fair estimate of gain. However, these differences do not apply to every element of the sample, and the differences do not necessarily last forever. Both are partly reasons for the disappointing results seen in programs to improve children’s achievements. In addition, behaviorists’ optimism for the extent to which social change can be effected by educational programs has proven to be misguided.

The modeling of social adaptation and personality does not deviate from this pattern in modeling intelligence, aptitude, and school achievements. The individual differences approach and factor analysis also rule these domains, and IRT is rarely applied in measuring personality and socioemotional adaptation.

3.3. Instruments for Assessing Children’s Achievements and Socioemotional Adaptation

Theories and constructs, on the one hand, and test-theoretical and statistical modeling, on the other, can be balanced and produce theory-driven instruments for educational and child assessment. However, practical questions have dominated test construction, resulting in the gathering of items that could predict practical criteria such as school and vocational success and adaptation and pathology. Examples of instruments measuring the following eight domains are presented next:

• Screening of developmental backwardness
• Cognitive and sensorimotor development
• School achievement
• Socioemotional adaptation
• Childhood pathology
• Personality and temperament
• Social status in a peer group
• Children’s social environments

3.3.1. Screening of Developmental Backwardness

Screening instruments attempt to measure developmental backwardness or disturbance. An example is the Denver Developmental Scale. Children from 6 days to 6 years 6 months of age are investigated with tasks, and the parents are interviewed. Despite its name, this instrument is an individual differences instrument and considers backwardness to be a one-dimensional scale. The McCarthy Developmental Scales presuppose orderly development in several domains. However, this presupposed ‘‘natural’’ development has not been tested empirically. These instruments contain different scales for cognitive and sensorimotor behaviors, and the children (2–9 years of age) are investigated using tasks and games to elicit problem-solving behaviors. Some items must be answered by the parents. The Gesell Motor Scales measure motor, speech, and social behaviors in children from 4 weeks to 6 years of age. Gesell presupposed a developmental scale in these behaviors.

3.3.2. Cognitive and Sensorimotor Motor Development

Cognitive and motor development can be investigated in young children using the Bayley Developmental Scales. Tasks are given to babies and toddlers, and their parents are interviewed. Two scores result: one for mental development and one for motor development. This is an individual differences test, and the two factors are rationally defined. The Wechsler scales for preschool children (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence [WPPSI]) and for school children (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children [WISC]) are the most widely used intelligence tests. Wechsler defined intelligence as the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his or her environment. Intelligence was considered to be an individual differences phenomenon. The performance and verbal intelligence factors were rationally distinguished and, in fact, usually correlate at approximately .70. Many factor analyses were conducted. The ‘‘three Kaufman factors’’ (verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, and freedom from distractability) interpretation of the WISC is popular. The existence of these factors is supported by factor-analytical results. The Stanford–Binet scale is the oldest intelligence test. The intelligence quotient (IQ) is defined as a comparison between what is normal for a certain age and what is observed in a specific child.

3.3.3. School Achievement

School achievement tests (SATs) are found in every Western country and many other countries. These were developed to cover a content domain and are treated as individual differences variables. It is not the primary goal of these measures to distinguish underlying factors that generate or cause these individual differences. SATs and grade point averages are useful in selecting and placing children in various educational levels, and they do predict future school achievements fairly well. The Differential Aptitude Test contains nine subtests (e.g., sentences, analogies, technical ability, arithmetic skill, words) that resemble Thurstone’s multiple intelligence factors.

3.3.4. Socioemotional Adaptation

Social emotional adaptation can be measured using many instruments, but all are based on the individual differences orientation, for example, Harter’s scales for measuring the aspects of self (e.g., academic, social, and motor skills; being socially accepted).

3.3.5. Childhood Pathology

Childhood pathology can be measured by Achenbach’s Child Behavior Check List (CBCL). It is based on the individual differences approach, and its factors are partly rational and empirically defined (e.g., the distinction between internalizing and externalizing behaviors). In 2000, Wenar and Kerig described several pathological syndromes in children using the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Although this system was originally developed for persons 18 years of age or over, it can be used for childhood pathology as well. In addition, many lists are available for teachers to judge the social and task behaviors of pupils. Kovacs’s questionnaire to measure depression is a downward extension of the Beck Depression Scales and allows one to define clinical cases of depression in children. The Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a short questionnaire to measure impulsivity, lack of attention, and the level of undirected activity in children 4 to 18 years of age. The Bender consists of prescribed figures that children must draw and helps to screen neurologically based deficits in perception and expression of simple and complex ‘‘Gestalts.’’

3.3.6. Personality and Temperament

Personality characteristics are considered to be individual differences variables. In addition to the ‘‘Big Five,’’ there are the ‘‘Small Five’’ for children measuring extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness. The California Q sort of Block’s Berkeley group distinguished three types of children: ego resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled children 21=2 to 18 years of age. These can easily be connected to the five personality factors.

Temperament is often considered to be a precursor to the personality traits. Several distinctions can be made: easy, slow to warm up, and difficult children.

3.3.7. Social Status in a Peer Group

Social status is an important variable because children have peers who influence their behaviors. In this procedure, children nominate peers with whom they like to play or work. This results in three types of children: popular, unpopular, and neglected children.

3.3.8. Children’s Social Environments

Family and school relationship instruments measure individual differences in families and schools. Moos’s social climate scales usually consist of approximately 100 items and result in three to nine dimensions underlying these items. The three most general dimensions are relationship (e.g., cohesion, conflict), personal growth (e.g., autonomy, task oriented), and system continuity/change (e.g., control, order, leadership). There are several questionnaires to measure the parental styles: authoritative, authoritarian, or laissez-faire. The school environment is also measured, that is, how this environment fosters achievement motivation, well-being, and self-confidence in pupils. The mental measurement yearbooks offer results from research on all of these instruments. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests, published in 1999, contains guidelines to judge the theoretical and psychometric qualities of these tests and questionnaires. Recent meta-analyses are a good source for judging the construct and criterion validity of many instruments.

In conclusion, all of the preceding instruments are based on the individual differences orientation. There are only a few instruments that use a developmental construct (e.g., Loevinger’s sentence completion test to measure the level of ego development, Kerssies and colleagues’ scales for sensorimotor development). However, these latter instruments are not frequently used by assessors. In the contextual orientation, the dependent variables usually are the well-known individual differences variables.

3.4. The Assessment Process in Children

The assessment process starts with the client’s question (or problem) and ends with the advice (or solution). It is modeled according to the procedure of empirically testing hypotheses in a true experiment and contains the following:

• The problem/question as formulated by the client
• The assessor’s reformulation of the problem in psychological constructs
• The assessor’s formulation of several hypotheses containing different causes of the (problem) behaviors
• The choice of instruments to ‘‘test’’ the hypotheses
• Integration of all the information from dossiers, anamnesis, test results, and interviews with parents, teachers, and institutions into a coherent picture
• The professional advice or solution, including recommendations for a specific intervention, training, therapy, or program

Assessment differs from testing in that the latter is more oriented to measuring variables, whereas assessment is more oriented to answering a client’s question or solving his or her problem. Testing is limited to the use of standardized instruments, whereas in assessment the judgmental processes and information integration play a significant role. Testing requires skills to conduct and score tests, whereas the assessor must also be familiar with the three components involved in assessing children. Assessment involves choosing, conducting, and interpreting tests and their results, the analysis of each specific case, and the weighing and integration of information. Finally, the assessor should be able and willing to account for all of the steps taken in this process.

Traditionally, pitfalls threaten the assessor. This issue concerns the integration of all the information from the various sources and is known as the clinical prediction versus statistical prediction controversy. In 1999, Garb reviewed all of these pitfalls and concluded that clinical prediction usually performs less well than statistical prediction. Pitfalls include the halo effect, fundamental attribution error, ignoring the base rate of phenomena, overestimating a salient detail and neglecting available statistical information, and giving information a wrong differential weighting.

It is recommended that the assessor use decision aids, such as the multi-attribute utility theory and the Bayesian rule, as much as possible to integrate information. A recent meta-analysis showed that clinical prediction is weaker than statistical prediction, but not to such a large extent as has been suggested. In addition, tests that traditionally demand much of the assessor’s interpretive abilities, such as projective tests and interviews, are not as unreliable and poorly valid as is often claimed. So, clinical prediction and controlled information gathering, using interviews and projective tests, and disciplined interpretation, using formulas whenever possible, can contribute to sound assessment of children’s achievements and social adaptation.

4. Possibilities And Limitations In Assessing Children

Assessment is performed using the composition of three components in the assessment process. This section addresses the possibilities and limitations. First, theories and constructs offer the possibility of defining the core elements of children’s achievements and adaptation but are often not specific enough for testing in a model. Second, the individual differences approach dominates the measuring of achievements and social adaptation, but more developmental theorizing that allows instrument construction is necessary to gain a more complete picture of children’s achievements and socio-emotional adaptation in the course of time. Even more constructs may be necessary to model the diverse and real developmental pathways. Third, the quality of test construction can be fostered using the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests, especially the standards for reliability and validity of tests. Fourth, achievement test construction was usually controlled by practical questions and contained much practical wisdom, but it can be enriched by clear theoretical considerations about the structure of achievements and adaptations. Fifth, the assessment process was structured after the empirical cycle for conducting scientific research, but this process can be supported by models and decision aids to minimize errors. Sixth, the assessor should be sensitive to the pitfalls in choosing, integrating, and interpreting the diagnostic information.

The assessment process requires disciplined assessors, whereas clinical assessors sometimes act freely and creatively to do justice to their ‘‘unique’’ clients.

Educational and child assessment poses specific problems.

5. Conclusion

The assessor must be aware of the relevant three components and integrate these into his or her assessment process. The first component is biased toward measuring individual differences on one or more dimensions, and this may detract attention away from real development in the child’s achievements and typical behaviors and from the influence of the context of these achievements and behaviors (e.g., events, stimuli, programs).

The assessor can be biased. Using formulas to integrate diagnostic information and standardized procedures in tests that usually allow for subjective interpretations helps to reduce such biases.

The assessor must operate in the complex environment of the child, parents, teachers, the institution, and the wider society, on the one hand, and in the psychological discipline, on the other. The latter offers much for accomplishing assessment but is so broad that the assessor must specialize in-depth. Recently, many meta-analyses have appeared and offer an equilibrated summary of the qualities of instruments and interventions. An assessment is best conducted by a team representing the knowledge and skills of several disciplines, thereby preventing individual biases.

6. Case Study: An Example Of Educational And Child Assessment

‘‘Bryan’’ is a 10-year-old boy who is in the fifth grade. He has a younger sister who is in the fourth grade. Bryan’s mother has no paid employment, and his father is a small businessman. The parents went to a school psychologist for advice because the teacher reported problems with Bryan’s behavior in the classroom, and they wondered what was causing this. The teacher recommended that the parents seek professional advice for Bryan. The school psychologist listened to the parents and formulated their question as follows: ‘‘They want to know more about Bryan’s lack of concentration and ask whether he himself experiences this lack of concentration. They would appreciate advice on how the teacher could help him.’’ The psychologist reformulated the parents’ question into the following diagnostic question: ‘‘How much are concentration and behavioral problems present, and how can these be explained?’’ This case was submitted to a professional institution, and it was decided to assess Bryan so as to give a professional and scientifically sound answer to the diagnostic question that reflected the perceived problem of the parents, the teacher, and Bryan.

Bryan’s problem was discussed with his parents and teacher. The parents had had no early problems with Bryan in starting to talk and walk. He cried a lot because he was eager to do more than he could. The preschool noted nothing special except that Bryan was inaccurate in fine motor tasks. He had to take the third grade of primary school twice because his reading and calculating were behind those of his classmates. Bryan could not concentrate well, and he quarreled a lot with the teacher. Some improvement was seen in the fourth and fifth grades, but concentration remained a problem and his writing was slovenly. In the eighth grade, Bryan said that he hated school and liked to stay at home. He often interrupted his tasks when sitting in front of the teacher, so he was placed at the rear of the class where he was quieter. The parents themselves said that Bryan needed order and structure, that he was willing to do his utmost, and that he was pleased with good results. He has broad interests. He has no steady friend, but this does not seem to bother him. He gets on very well with his father. Bryan is a scout, and the troop leaders consider him to be a ‘‘model child.’’ The parents do not understand why he should need special help.

The teacher, on the other hand, called Bryan a chaotic boy who is not motivated to achieve. The teacher punished him, but this did not lead to any noticeable change in Bryan’s behavior. His reading is average compared with his classmates, but it is actually 1 year behind the national average. His handwriting is bad, and he is forced to do many of his writing tasks twice. He makes too many errors in arithmetic because he is careless. He tries to finish his tasks as quickly as possible and then bothers other pupils. Sometimes he is very introverted. He is involved in conflicts in the schoolyard and when he works in a small group. He is not willing to admit that he makes mistakes. The teacher has suggested that Bryan be given professional help.

These complaints were clustered by the assessor into the following: lack of concentration, chaotic behavior, demanding attention, poor arithmetic, low reading level, bad reading and writing, low achievement motivation, conflicts with peers, and lack of social relationships at school. A first guess at the possible causes resulted in the following: inadequate visual organization, no planning, insufficient fine motor development, bad relationship with teacher, needs more structure, inefficient compulsion and punishment, low self-esteem, avoids contacts with peers at school.

Hypotheses as definite answers to the question were formulated, including criteria to test the answers:

1. Lack of perceptual organization, reduced concentration (WISC, observation, concentration test)
2. ADHD (DSM, 16-item ADHD questionnaire, observation)
3. Low self-esteem (observation, interview, two questionnaires)
4. Lack of achievement motivation (questionnaire)
5. Bad relationship with the teacher (interview, observation in the classroom)

The hypotheses were tested using a criterion set prior to the start of testing. The answers were as follows: 1, yes; 2, no; 3, no; 4, no; and 5, yes.

6.1. Summary of the Results for the Client (Bryan, Teacher, School, and Parents)

Bryan has an average IQ, his perceptual organization is more than 1.5 SD below average, his attention and concentration are more than 1 SD below average, his relationship with the teacher is very tense, and Bryan avoids going to school. His self-esteem and achievement motivation are average.

Advice for treatment was concrete, and its implementation was feasible. It was considered that it would be better if Bryan could change class for the next year. The relationship with the teacher had to be improved. A daily planning of tasks was made and agreed on by both Bryan and the teacher, and the tasks were divided into small units. Instructions were short and clear, a time limit was given for each task, and he could ask questions at fixed times. The teacher was informed about the assessment results.

6.2. Three Months Later

Bryan had started the new school year with renewed vigor. The relationship with his new teacher was normal. He still showed easily ‘‘off task’’ behavior, but this was simple to correct, and he ended his tasks within the time limits if supervision was available. His results were average, with only his progress in arithmetic still being slow; he had made progress compared with the past year. Bryan was more involved in peer activities and had a steady friend now. His parents said that Bryan was somewhat pleased about going to school.

6.3. The Psychological Investigation of Bryan and the Assessment Components

Concerning the instruments, all of the tests were constructed according to classic test theory, and results of IRT-based educational tests were used. The choice of these instruments was accounted for by the hypotheses; that is, definite testable answers to the questions were needed. The criteria for acceptance and rejection of the hypotheses were formulated in advance. There were several ‘‘rival’’ hypotheses to explain Bryan’s problem behaviors; two of these were not rejected, and three were rejected. Although the rival hypotheses were not really independent, the process did contain steps for trying to discover the ‘‘real cause’’ of the problem. There was no ordering in the hypotheses; that is, there was an educated guess as to the most or least successful. The cause of the problem was sought mainly ‘‘in the pupil,’’ although one hypothesis considered the relationship between Bryan and the teacher. There were more tests and questionnaires available to test the hypotheses. There was no argument for the specific choices (e.g., the quality according to Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests). Every instrument was about individual differences, and Bryan’s results are compared with those of a norm group or a criterion. Projective tests, often used in socio-emotional problems, were not used.

There was no concept of development involved in the assessment; however, there was a follow-up interview with the parents and Bryan’s new teacher. There were nonspecific ideas about the effect of changing the classroom environment for Bryan. What was the exact condition changed (independent variable), and what was the precise behavior (dependent variable)? The process followed the prescriptions of the hypotheses testing model of assessment. Theory, as present in the instruments used, was scarce. Assessment was focused on answering concrete questions, but the theoretical base could have been stronger.

It is clear that this assessment protocol depended on the components of classic test theory and that IRT was used only because of the available educational tests. The individual difference orientation dominated, but implicitly a contextual orientation was present (changing the structure of the tasks with some effect on Bryan’s behaviors), whereas there was very little developmental orientation. Theoretical possibilities for explanation of the behaviors were not structured and possibly were insufficiently exploited. The hypotheses were not ordered, and no real rival explanations of the problem behaviors were stated. The instruments were chosen because of the questions posed, and there was an attempt to use various methods to assess the same behaviors (e.g., tests, observation, interview). The assessment was discussed by a team, and the parents, the teacher, and Bryan himself were informed of the results.

The preceding analysis, using the comprehensive definition of assessment used in this research-paper, helps to pinpoint the stronger and weaker elements in a concrete psychological investigation of a child. It is recommended that these components be used in conducting such investigations of clients.

References:

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological tests (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2. Caspi, A., and Roberts, B. W. (1999). Personality continuity and change across the life course. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 300–327). New York: Guilford.
3. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
4. Ferna´ ndez-Ballesteros, R., De Bruyn, E., Godoy, A., Hornke, L., ter Laak, J., Vizcarro, C., Westhoff, K., Westmayer, H., and Zaccagnini, J. (2001). Guidelines for the assessment process. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 178–191.
5. Garb, H. N. (1999). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.
7. Hambleton, R., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer–Nijhoff.
8. Jensen, A. J. (1998). The G factor: The science of mental ability. London: Praeger.
9. Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.
10. Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1998). The rising curve: Long term gains in IQ and related measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (pp. 703–733). New York: John Wiley.
12. Ter Laak, J., De Goede, M., & Brugman, G. (2001). Teacher judgments of pupils: Agreement and accuracy. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 257–270.

See also:

• Psychology Research Paper Topics
•  Psychology Research Paper Examples

Free research papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to order a custom research paper on any topic and get your high quality paper at affordable price.