An Evaluation of Select Screening Tools

Tools Included:

• Ages & Stages Questionnaire
• Denver Developmental Screening II
• Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test
• Birth to Three Developmental Scale
• Birth to Three Assessment & Intervention System
• Minnesota Child Development Inventory
• Minnesota Infant Development Inventory

Note from Presenters:
This handout provides a description of each tool, information on standardization data, reliability and validity and utility. The information contained in the utility section is based on summaries from recently published reviews of the each tool--references for such reviews have been included. We have elected to focus only on those tools that screen very young children across multiple domains of development (i.e., motor, social, communication, etc.).

Definitions

Screening Tool:
A screening tool is used to make a judgment about developmental progress in order to determine if further assessment is necessary. The screening process helps an individual judge whether development is progressing typically or if there is cause for concern. A screening tool is not designed to provide detailed description of developmental functioning or to design intervention strategies.

Assessment:
An assessment is conducted to determine the existence of a developmental delay, to identify strengths and needs, and to develop strategies for intervention.

Three Types of Assessments: Norm-referenced, Criterion-referenced, and Performance based.

A norm-referenced assessment instrument is used to compare the performance of an individual child to that of the normative group. Group "norms" are developed by obtaining the performance of a representative sample. This is called the standardization process. The standardization is critical to the validity and reliability of a test. The normative sample should be comprised of a representative cross-section of the population for whom the test is designed.

The results of this type of test are generally presented as developmental ages, IQ's, or percentile scores.

A criterion-referenced assessment instrument is used to determine if a child has achieved mastery in a particular domain. The child's behavior is measured in relation to a specific behavior, rather than to a normative group. The focus is on what the child knows or can do, not on how they compare to others.

Performance-based assessments allow children to demonstrate their competencies by acting on the environment, solving problems, and interacting with others in a natural context. Attend to the quality of children's skills and involve multiple sources of information.

Psychometrics:

The reliability of a test refers to the consistency or dependability of a test. Reliability is determined by statistical analysis. No test is 100% reliable due to "measurement error". There are always chance fluctuations in the testing environment. The reliability of a test is improved when the testing conditions remain uniform - the same environment, testing conditions, how instructions are presented, the materials used, etc. Reliability is always reported as a correlation coefficient. For research purposes, a reliability coefficient of .80 is sufficient, but for clinical purposes, a correlation of .90 or higher is necessary.

The validity of a test refers to how well it measures what it is designed to measure. It cannot be determined in general terms, such as high or low, but only in reference to the particular use for which the test was designed.

The sensitivity of a test is a statistical measure that indicates the proportion of children at risk who are correctly identified by the screening test. Specificity refers to the proportion of children not at risk who are correctly excluded from further assessment.

Ages & Stages Questionnaire

Age range: 4 months to 48 months
Purpose: Parent completed child monitoring system
Publication Dates: Original Publication Date 1979, Revised 1991,1994
Publisher: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.
P. O. Box 10624
Baltimore, MD 21285-0624

Description: The ASQ was designed to screen for developmental delays by evaluating an infant's development over time. The system consists of 11 questionnaires to be completed by the parent at 4, 6, 8,12,16,18, 20, 24, 36, and 48 months of age. Each questionnaire contains 30 items and examines development in the following five domains: communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem solving, and personal and social development. There are three choices parents can choose from in answering questions (yes, sometimes, not yet). Each questionnaire also provides a section where parents can identify general concerns that may not be captured by questionnaire items. All items are written a1: a sixth grade reading level and a Spanish version is available. There is also a video tape available that provides guidance on how the system may be used in a home visiting context. Estimated administration time is 10-30 minutes. In addition to the Administration Manual providing information on using the system and scoring the questionnaires, guidance is offered on how one might evaluate the useful of the system in their given program.

Standardization: The sample reported in the Administration Manual is comprised of 2, 008 children from the states of Oregon, Hawaii, and Ohio. The sample includes children from a variety of ethnic (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Native American) and socioeconomic backgrounds However, parents from Asian backgrounds appear underrepresented Among the standardization group, data has been gathered on typically developing infants, as well as infants at risk for developmental delay due to medical and/or environmental risk factors. In fact, from 1980 to 1988 the research sample evaluated largely consisted of infants who were deemed medically at risk.

Reliability/Validity: Both test-retest reliability and interrater reliability data on use of ASQ have: been found to be fairly acceptable. Interrater reliability, in this case, refers to the percent of agreement between the parent's rating and those of a professional. Validity studies have also yielded fairly positive findings. The underreferral rate (those with a delay but not picked up by the ASQ) across the 11 age intervals ranged from 1% to 13% while the overreferral rate (those identified by ASQ as having a delay where in fact not delay was found upon subsequent assessment) ranged from 7% to 16%. Sensitivity ranged from 38% to 90% across the 11 age intervals and specificity ranged from 81% to 90% across the age intervals.

Utility: Very few reviews have been published on the utility of this instrument. Current data on the reliability and validity of the tool suggest that it offers promise as an infant/toddler screening tool. See listing of references below for additional research data on ASQ. Please note that prior to the 1994 revision the instrument was referred to in the research literature as the Infant Monitoring System.

Bricker, D., Squires, J. Kaminski, R., & Mounts, L. (1988). The validity, reliability, and cost of a parent- completed questionnaire system to evaluate at-risk infants. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, I3, 5 5-68.

Squires, J. K., Nickel, R., & Bricker, D. (1990). Use of parent-completed developmental questionnaires for child find and screen. Infants and Young Children, 3, 46-57.

Squires, J. & Bricker, D. (1991), Impact of completing infant developmental questionnaires on at-risk mothers. Journal of Early Intervention, I5,162-172.

Denver Developmental Screening - II

Age range: 2 weeks to 6 years
Purpose: A screening tool to detect developmental delays
Publication dates: 1967-1990
Publisher: Denver Developmental Materials, Inc.
P.O. Box 371075
Denver, CO 80237-5075

Description: This instrument was designed to be a quick and simple screening tool to be used in clinical settings by people with little training in developmental assessment. The test is comprised of 125 items, divided into four categories: Gross Motor, Fine Motor/Adaptive, Personal/Social, and Language. 'The items are arranged in chronological order according to the ages at which most children pass them. The test is administered in 10 - 20 minutes and consists of asking the parent questions and having the child perform various tasks. The test kit contains a set of inexpensive materials in a soft zippered bag, a pad of test forms, and a reference manual. The manual includes instructions for calculating the child's age, administering and scoring each item, and interpreting the test results.

The test items are represented on the form by a bar that spans the age at which 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% of the standardization sample passed that item. The child's age is drawn as a vertical line on the chart and the examiner administers the items bisected by the line. The child's performance is rated Pass, Caution, or Delay depending on where the age line is drawn across the bar. The number of Delays or Cautions determine the rating of Normal, Questionable, or Abnormal.

Standardization: The original standardization sample consisted 1,036 children and approximated the occupational and ethnic distribution of Colorado. Children with known handicaps, twins, breech or premature birth, and adopted children were excluded. The re-standardization in 1990 included 2,096 children. The demographic characteristics of the sample approximate the distribution in Colorado" which compared to the population of the United States is an overrepresentation of Hispanic infants, and underrepresentation of African American infants, and a disproportionate number of infants from Caucasian mothers with more than 12 years of education.

Reliability/Validity: This test has been criticized for a number of inadequacies. The fit between the test items and what the test is supposed to measure has been questioned. The most serious concern has; been it's lack of sensitivity in correctly identifying children with developmental delays, particularly children under three years of age. The standardization sample is not representative of the nation as a whole, but simply presents the age at which children in Colorado are able to do a variety of tasks.

Utility: This test is widely used due to it's ease of administration and scoring. The weaknesses of this test are due to it's psychometric problems and the tendency to miss children with developmental delays. Moreover, the use of this test on populations other than healthy, white, upper middle class children has been questioned due to the standardization process. The DDST is intended only for screening purposes, and should not be used as an in-depth assessment of developmental functioning or to plan intervention programs.

Buros, O. (1995). Mental Measurements Yearbook, l2th Edition, pp. 263-266.

Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test

Age range: Birth to 8 years
Purpose: General screening for developmental delays
Publication date: 1984
Publisher: DLM Teaching Resources One DLM Park Allen, TX 75002

Description: The Battelle Screening Test is a part of a larger test called the Battelle Developmental Inventory. The full-scale BDI is designed as a diagnostic assessment. The Screening test is designed to identify children who are at-risk for delay and in need of a more comprehensive evaluation with the full-scale BDI. The Screening Test consists of 96 items in the areas of motor, communication, personal-social, adaptive, and cognitive development. Three methods of assessment may be used: administering the items to the children, observing the child in a natural context, and parent report. The manual provides adaptations that can be made for children with handicapping conditions.

Standardization: Based on the larger Battelle Developmental Inventory. Eight hundred children participated and were selected according to race, gender, and geographic region according to the US Census Bureau. While the total percentage of minority children for the total sample was representative of the national percentage, the sub-sample at any particular age range may be quite small (i.e. only one minority male in the age range of 12-17 months.) Also, the minority children included Hispanic and African American, but did not include Asian or Native American families. Children in poverty may also be underrepresented as the authors did not attempt to control for socioeconomic status. There is no mention whether children with handicaps were included in the sample.

Reliability/Validity: Only information on the parent BDI was available. One reviewer raised considerable questions concerning the cut-off scores. In many cases (46% of the age levels), the range of raw scores separating a moderate delay (-1 standard deviation) from a severe delay (-2.33 standard deviations) was 0,1, or 2 points. For another example, a child who receives a nearly perfect score (39 passes out of 40 items) on the Motor Domain, receives a rating of moderate delay at -1 standard deviation below average. Furthermore, children whose birthdays are at the borderline of the age intervals, identical test performance can lead to significantly different scores.

Additional concerns with this test include the fact that the examiner must collect their own test materials, and the test can be administered differently for each child. Therefore, the normative comparisons are flawed. An examiner cannot compare the performance of a handicapped child to the norms if the administration has been altered.

Utility: Given the psychometric inadequacies of this test, the reviewers recommend that the BDI Screening test be used only as an additional aide in assessing a child's developmental skills, and not as tool to make a decision regarding a child's placement or referral. The error rates when using the cut-off scores is extremely high. They recommend that the cut-off scores not be used in making referral decisions. Furthermore, this test should not be used with infants under six months of age.

Buros, O. ( 1990). Mental Measurements Yearbook, 1Oth Edition, pp. 23-31.

Keyser, D. & Sweetland, R. (1985). Test Critiques, Vol. II, pp. 72-82.

Birth to Three Developmental Scale

Age range: 0-36 months
Purpose: A screening tool to measure the developmental skills of both typically developing children and those with handicaps.
Publication date: 1979-1986 (Latest version is renamed the Birth to Three Assessment and Intervention System).
Publisher: DLM Teaching Resources
One DLM Park Allen, TX 75002

Description: This instrument is criterion-referenced. The scale measures developmental skills in four areas: 1) Oral language (comprehension and expression); 2) Problem solving; 3) Social/Personal; and 4) Motor. There are 85 test items across the age span. Items can be presented in any order and there is no time limit on the child's performance. The child's performance can be scored by observation or parental report. Test materials are not provided so that examiners can use objects from the child's natural environment. A 72-page manual describes the test, standardization, and instructions for observing the child's performance and scoring the responses. A list of necessary materials is included. The results of the assessment are graphed on the assessment summary page. The score of each subtest is plotted on the graph to depict the child's performance level in months, which can be compared to the child's chronological age.

Standardization: Included 357 typically-developing children ranging in age from 4 1/2 to 36 months. The children were selected from the states of Utah, California, and Tennessee. The group was divided evenly between rural and urban, and male and female. The manual states that an attempt was made to include children from varying ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status, but did not bread down these variables.

Reliability/Validity: Reviewers cited limited evidence for both validity and reliability. The major issue with validity is whether the behaviors are matched appropriately to the age level and rests with the; standardization procedure. Only one reliability study was noted.

Utility: This test was described as adequate for a screening tool but should not be used as an in-depth assessment. For children who have already been diagnosed with a development delay, this scale could provide a basis for developing goals and an intervention program. Due to the fact that no children under 4 months were included in the standardization sample, this test should not be used with infants who are functioning below the 4 month level.

Keyser, D. & Sweetland, R. (1985). Test Critiques, Vol. III, pp. 68-74.

Birth to Three Assessment and Intervention System

Age Range: Birth to 3 years.
Purpose: To identify and assess developmental delays in young children and to design early intervention programs.
Published: 1986
Publisher: DLM Teaching Resources
One DLM Park Allen TX 75002

Description: This is an expanded and updated version of the Birth to Three Developmental Scale" The kit consists of three spiral bound notebooks: 1) The manual for the Birth to Three Screening Test of Learning and Language Development; 2) the Birth to Three Checklist of Learning and Language Behavior; and 3) the Intervention Manual: A Parent-Teacher Interaction Program.

The Screening Test consists of a 4 page record form. The 85 test items are divided into five areas: Language Comprehension, Language Expression, Avenues to Learning (cognitive and perceptual-motor items), Social-Personal Development, and Motor Development.

The Checklist consists of an 11 page record form. The 240 test items are divided equally between, these same five areas, with 48 items in each domain. Each six-month age range has 6 items per developmental area.

The items for the Screening Test and Checklist were selected from existing infant assessment scales. The test materials are not provided, but a list of needed items is presented in the manuals. The manuals also describe the administration procedures and criteria for scoring the performance as Pass, Emerging, or Fail.

The Intervention Manual provides an introduction and basic overview for designing an intervention program. The focus is on developing a curriculum for cognitive and language skill development, wwith little attention to social-emotional development or engaging parents. This reviewer found the manual to be too superficial to use as a curriculum package or for developing an intervention program and warned that paraprofessionals should not be mislead into thinking that assessment and intervention is as simple and straightforward as the manual leads one to believe.

Standardization: Consisted of 357 children, ages 4 to 36 months, from the states of California, Tennessee, and Utah. The group was balanced for gender, and rural versus urban environment, and the manual states that an attempt was made to include children from varying ethnic and socioeconomic status but does not give any data on who was actually included. The normative tables were developed with data from the earlier standardization sample rather than the current one, but no reason is given. Furthermore, the instructions for using the norm tables are confusing and did not make sense to the reviewer. This issue is under consideration by the publisher.

Reliability/Validity: For the Screening Test, the manual does not provide enough information regarding reliability and validity to adequately address these issues. The reviewer mentioned the lack of standardized test materials as a limit to the ability to compare test results between individual children. No data was provided on validity studies. Similarly, the manual for the Checklist does not provide information on how the checklist was constructed or any reliability or validity data. There is no discussion of how to interpret scores.

Utility: This instrument is described as a three-part set for screening, program planning, and monitoring progress of at-risk or delayed children. This reviewer raised concern regarding the inadequate information regarding standardization, reliability, and validity. Thus the Screening Test was not recommended as a norm-referenced test. The Checklist could have some use as a way to monitor a child's progress in a program, but extreme caution must be taken not to interpret the child's performance in a normative way (i.e. as delayed or not) until further validity studies have been done. The Intervention Manual is useful as a brief introduction or overview of the issues involved in designing an early intervention program, but many additional resources are needed to adequately address the complex needs of an early intervention program.

Buros, O. ( 1992). Mental Measurements Yearbook, 11th Edition, pp. 110-112.

Minnesota Child Development Inventory

Age Range: 1-6 years
Purpose: Screening tool to determine developmental status
Published: 1968-1974
Publisher: Behavior Science Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1108
Minneapolis, MN 55440

Description: This scale is a 320 item parent-completed questionnaire. There are eight domains: general development, gross motor, fine motor, expressive language, comprehension-conceptual, situation comprehension, self help, and personal-social. There are separate forms according to age and gender. Caregivers are instructed to read each statement and check yes or no if it applies to their child. Respondents must have an eighth grade reading level to complete the questionnaire. It takes approximately 30-50 minutes to complete. This is test is designed to supplement a parent interview when questions of developmental delay have been raised.

Standardization: Items were selected on the basis of representation of developmental skills, observability by mothers in real life situations, descriptive clarity, and age-discriminating power. The standardization sample consisted of 796 children from Bloomington, Minnesota. The ages ranged from 6 months to 6 years. The number of boys and girls were equivalent. The authors state that "the normative group should not be considered representative of white, preschool children in general" and "the norms should not be used for children from families of lower socioeconomic status or other ethnic backgrounds".

Reliability/Validity: Limited information exists concerning reliability and validity. This test correlates well with other established measures of children's abilities (i.e. Bayley, McCarthy, Cattell). The biggest concern was with the interpretation of the scores "percent below age level".

Utility: One reviewer notes "The demographics suggest, and the authors concur, that this instrument is suited for use with white, middle-class, non-handicapped children from intact families of successfully employed fathers and unemployed mothers". This instrument is meant to supplement a parental interview and should not be the only source of information about a child.

Buros, O. (1985). Mental Measurements Yearbook, 9th Edition, pp. 991-992.

Minnesota Infant Development Inventory

Age range: 1-15 months
Purpose: Mother's observations of her infant's development
Published: 1977-1980
Publisher: Behavior Science Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1108
Minneapolis, MN 55440

Description: This instrument evolved out of the authors earlier work with the Minnesota Child Development Inventory. Similar to the MCDI, the MIDI was designed to obtain a mother's observations of her baby's developmental functioning. It measures five domains: gross motor, fine motor, language, comprehension, and personal-social. The booklet contains 75 questions; there is one item for each month of age in each of five areas. There is no manual, and no scores are derived. 'The examiner determines developmental delay if the child's performance falls below the behavior of infants 30% younger.

Standardization: The standardization for this instrument is based on the standardization of the parent MCDI. Since there were no infants younger than 6 months in the sample, the placement of items in. the early months is unclear.

Reliability/Validity: No information is given for this age range for either the MCDI or the MIDI.

Utility: This scale is presented as a method for involving parents in examining the development of their infant. No information is provided on the psychometric properties, the standardization is inadequate, and there is no guidance on the interpretation of delay.

Buros, O. (1985). Mental Measurements Yearbook, 9th Edition, Vol. II, pp. 995-996.

Beyond Selecting a Tool: Key Practices to Keep in Mind When Assessing Infant and Toddlers

Some Do's and Don'ts from New Visions in the Assessment of Infants and Young Children.

Do's

1. Assessment must be based on an integrated model of child development.

   An integrated model includes the range of developmental domains as well as the child's "functional capacities": paying attention, relating and engaging, reciprocal interactions, organizing behavior, constructing symbolic representations, etc. An effort must be made to understand the child in relation to their family and examine how the child relates to the world around them. We must find ways to discover the child's optimal level of functioning in our assessment approaches. This necessitates observing the child over time and in different contexts.

2. Assessment involves multiple sources of information and multiple components.
   • Developmental history
   • Parents perceptions of child's strengths and needs
   • Direct observation of the child, including interactions with caregiver
   • Observations and interaction with the family regarding family needs and strengths
   • Focused observation of the child in different areas of functioning
   
   
   
3. Assessment should follow a certain sequence.
   • Build and alliance with the parent/caregiver
   • Obtain developmental history
   • Observe the child in the context of unstructured play with caregivers
   • If appropriate, observe child in play with evaluator/clinician
   • Conduct specific assessments of individual functions
   • Integrate all of the data to create picture of the whole child, and convey assessment findings in the context of an alliance with the parents.
   
   
   
4. The child's relationship and interactions with his or her caregiver should form the cornerstone of the assessment.

   Children will generally reveal their highest level of skills in the context of spontaneous, motivated interactions with caregivers. The evaluator can build on these interactions by coaching the parent to elicit certain competency or by joining in the interaction.

5. An understanding of the sequences and timetables in typical development is essential as a framework for the interpretation of developmental differences among infants and toddlers.

   Given the considerable variation in the normal range of development during the early years, professionals must have sound knowledge in the typical sequence and timetable for different areas of development.

6. Assessment should emphasize attention to the child's level and pattern of organizing experience and to functional capacities, which represent an integration of emotional and cognitive functioning.

   The basic capacities of relating, interacting and thinking will directly impact on the specific developmental skills under consideration. It is not just a question of if a particular skills exists or not, but how does the environment support the child's developmental functioning.

7. The assessment process should identify current competencies and strengths, as well as identify the next step in the developmental sequence in order to facilitate growth.

   It is more useful to think about how to build on the child's current capacities, than to merely describe deficits or lags in development. Too often an assessment focuses on the delay in development.

8. Assessment is a collaborative process.

   Building an alliance with the primary caregivers is essential to the process. All of the professionals involved with the child have an important role to play in the evaluation.

9. Assessment should be viewed as the first step in a potential intervention process.

   The process of screening and assessment has an impact on the family and child regardless of whether intervention services will be provided. It is important to recognize the impact of the process on the family.

10. Reassessment should occur in the context of daily family or intervention activities.

Formal reassessment should occur in the context of the child's daily activities and be conducted by those who are working with the family and child.

Don'ts

1. Young children should never be challenged during an assessment by separation from their caregiver.

   A child should not have to endure the stress of such a separation, and the resultant effect on test performance.

2. Young children should never be tested by someone with whom they are unfamiliar.

   It is unlikely that children will demonstrate their highest abilities when faced with a strange examiner.

3. Assessments that are limited to developmental areas that are easily measured should not be considered complete.

   Assessments which focus only on certain areas, such as cognitive or motor skills, are inadequate. The child's interactions with caregivers and functional capacities are critical elements of an evaluation. Assessments should not be conducted using tools simply because they are available or because somebody on the staff is trained to use it. These types of assessments do not provide an integrated understanding of the child's capacities.

4. Formal tests or tools should not be the cornerstone of the evaluation.

   Formal tests are only approximations of a child's capacities in the real world. The limitations of formal tests must be taken into account. Formal tests for infants and young children have been derived from methodology created for older children and it is debatable how much meaningful information can be derived from a test score.

Meisels, S. & Fenichel, E. (1995). New Visions for the Developmental Assessment of Infants and Young Children. Washington, DC: Zero to Three/National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families.

Recommended Guidelines

1. Screening and assessment should be viewed as services-as part of the intervention-and not only as means of identification and measurement.
   
   
2. Processes, procedures, and instruments intended for screening and assessment should only be used for their specified purposes.
   
   
3. Multiple sources of information should be included in screening and assessment.
   
   
4. Developmental screenings should take place on a recurrent or periodic basis.
   
   
5. Screening should be viewed as only one path to more in-depth assessment.
   
   
6. Screening and assessment procedures should be reliable and valid.
   
   
7. Family members should be an integral part of the screening and assessment process.
   
   
8. Screening and assessments should be conducted in natural, non-threatening settings and involve tasks that are relevant to the child and family.
   
   
9. All tests, procedures, and processes intended for screening and assessment must be culturally sensitive.
   
   
10. Those who screen and assess young children should be well-trained.

Meisels, S. J., & Provence, S. (1989). Screening and Assessment: Guidelines for Identifying Young Disabled and Developmentally Vulnerable Children and their Families. National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System/Zero to Three.

Selected References

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

This textbook offers a comprehensive discussion of the background of psychological testing, technical and methodological issues, and reviews of well-known tests. The chapters on psychometric properties of tests are thorough and an extremely useful reference.

Buros, O. (1959-1995). Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska.

This is a reference manual that is currently in the 12th edition. Experts in the field provide critical reviews of a wide variety of tests and measurements.

Gibbs, E. & Teti, D. (1990). Interdisciplinary Assessment of Infants: A Guide for Early Intervention Professionals. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

A textbook in infant assessment, this book has a particularly helpful chapter on understanding questions of measurement. Psychometric properties of tests are discussed in a simple, easy-to-read manner.

Keyser, D. & Sweetland, R. (1985). Test Critiques. Minneapolis, MN: Behavior Science Systems.

This reference manual provides critical reviews of tests in the areas of psychology, education, and human resources. There is a companion book, called Tests, which is an annotated list of published instruments. Tests provides a detailed description with price and ordering information but does not evaluate the instruments.

Linder, T. W. (1993). Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment: A Functional Approach to Working with Young Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.

This book offers a model for a team-oriented approach to assessing a child in a natural context. There is a companion book, titled Transdiciplinary Play-Based Intervention: Guidelines for Developing a Meaningful Curriculum for Young Children. The Play-Based Assessment manual provides helpful charts of developmental milestones, and charts to guide observations of a child's cognitive, language, motor, and social-emotional functioning in the context of play.

Meisels, S. J. & Fenichel, E. (1996). New Visions for the Developmental Assessment of Infants and Young Children. Washington, DC: Zero to Three/National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families.

A new publication from ZERO TO THREE, this book reflects the most current developments in the field of assessment and intervention. Clinicians, researchers, parents, and policymakers contributed their expertise and insight to describe assessment approaches at the cutting-edge of best practice.

Meisels, S. J. & Provence, S. (1989). Screening and Assessment: Guidelines for Identifying Young Disabled and Developmentally Vulnerable Children and their Families. Washington, DC: Zero to Three/National Center for Clinical Infant Programs.

This handbook provides the rationale, core components, and guidelines for developing a screening and assessment system for children with disabilities. It was prepared as part of a national technical assisstance program for all states and territories inplementing Public Law 99-457.

Poisson, S., & DeGangi, G. (1991). Emotional and Sensory Processing Problems: Assessment and Treatment Approaches for Young Children and their Families. Rockville, MD: Reginald S. Lourie Center for Infants and Young Children.

This manual describes clinical techniques for the early detection and treatment of young children with constitutional, behavioral, or emotional difficulties. The techniques have been developed and used by the clinicians at the Reginald S. Lourie Center for Infants and Young Children, an agency specializing in the early assessment, treatment, and prevention of emotional and developmental problems in children from birth to age five. The center provides early intervention programs, consultation, training, and research.

Rosetti, L. M. (1990). Infant-Toddler Assessment: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

The purpose of this text is to address the underlying issues and challenges inherent in the developmental assessment of infants and toddlers, and to provide some direction in tackling these concerns. The author background and rationale for the need for infant screening and assessment, and provides concrete suggestions for issues such as correcting for prematurity, models for service delivery, selecting an appropriate instrument, and personnel training issues.

Back to Top