profile of preschool learning and development readiness ... · alisha’s research interests...

Profile of Preschool Learning and

Development Readiness (ProLADR)

For Children One & Two Years Prior

to Kindergarten

ADMINISTRATION &

TECHNICAL MANUAL

© 2017 Early Learning Labs

2 Copyright © 2017 Early Learning Labs. All rights reserved.

Authors & Contributors

Kristen Missall, Ph.D., NCSP

Kristen is an associate professor in the School Psychology Program at the University of

Washington. She received a Ph.D. in school psychology from the University of Minnesota, and

completed post-doctoral training at the Center for Early Education and Development at the

University of Minnesota. Prior to her appointment at the University of Washington she served on

the faculty at the University of Kentucky and University of Iowa.

Her research interests include child development (specifically from ages 3-8), academic and

social development, transition to kindergarten, early school adjustment, and general outcome

measurement. Kristen has authored over 40 journal articles, technical reports, and book

chapters. She serves currently as Associate Editor for the Journal of Early Intervention and on

the Advisory Board of the Iowa Reading Research Center.

Alisha Wackerle-Hollman, Ph.D., NCSP

Alisha is the vice president of research at Early Learning Labs and a research associate within

the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Alisha has

contributed to IGDI development since 2005 and currently works on the research and

development of future measures including identification and progress monitoring measures.

Alisha’s research interests include development of early literacy and language, measure

development, research to practice application, progress monitoring, community based and

participatory action research, parenting intervention, children’s literature and school readiness.

Dena Roberts

Dena Roberts has worked in Early Childhood for over 20 years. She has worked in various roles

in the early childhood field, including teacher, assistant director, coach and most recently trainer.

Dena received her bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education at Concordia University.

Dena’s work consists of providing resources and support for students, teachers and

administrators by implementing various coaching strategies targeted towards kindergarten

readiness. Dena has also helped prepare centers and schools in achieving accreditation. Dena has

facilitated and created many trainings designed for Early Childhood staff with a focus on

literacy, math and MTSS/RTI implementation.

Copyright Notice

Copyright © 2017 Early Learning LabsTM. All rights reserved.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction to Purpose and Type of Assessment ....................................................................................... 4

Theoretical Framework for Development ................................................................................................... 5

Domain and Subdomain Orientation and Rationale ................................................................................ 5

Social and Emotional Development .................................................................................................... 5

Language Development ...................................................................................................................... 6

Cognitive and General Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 6

Approaches to Learning ...................................................................................................................... 7

Physical Well-Being ........................................................................................................................... 7

Guiding Frameworks .............................................................................................................................. 7

Alignment with State Standards .......................................................................................................... 8

Procedures for Completing the Tool ........................................................................................................... 9

Training .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Recommended Administration Windows................................................................................................ 9

Administration Instructions and Scoring Procedures .............................................................................. 9

Needed Materials .............................................................................................................................. 11

Scoring Rubrics................................................................................................................................. 11

Item Examples & Scoring ................................................................................................................. 12

Reducing Bias in Scoring .................................................................................................................. 14

Score Interpretation ............................................................................................................................... 14

Normative Benchmarks..................................................................................................................... 15

Normative Sample ............................................................................................................................ 17

Using the Assessment with All Children .................................................................................................. 17

Sharing Results with Families................................................................................................................... 18

Using Results to Inform Instruction .......................................................................................................... 18

Technical Adequacy ................................................................................................................................. 19

References ................................................................................................................................................ 23


BACKGROUND

The myIGDIs Profile of Preschool Learning and Development Readiness (ProLADR) was

designed to provide teachers a rating scale for monitoring the growth and development of young

children across multiple learning domains as they make their way through preschool towards

Kindergarten. The ProLADR is one of several instruments in the myIGDIs assessment portfolio,

and is intended to be used alongside the existing research-based measures, Individual Growth

and Development Indicators of Early Literacy (IGDI-EL) and Early Numeracy (IGDI-EN).

Using these three tools in unison will provide teachers/caregivers a broad range of information,

collected in a standardized fashion both formally and informally, for assessing the growth and

development of preschool-aged children.

For more information pertaining to these assessment tools and programs, please reference the

myIGDIs website at http://www.myIGDIs.com.

INTRODUCTION TO PURPOSE AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT

Purpose of Assessment

The Profile of Preschool Learning and Development Readiness (ProLADR) is a

comprehensive assessment for children in preschool and preschool-like settings the two years

prior to kindergarten entry. ProLADR is a teacher/caregiver rating scale grounded in a series

of semi-structured observations, with teacher ratings information about individual children.

ProLADR can be used by a child’s primary teacher or caregiver across a range of preschool

settings, including schools, Head Start centers, child care centers and family child care

programs, homes, and so on.

The purpose of the ProLADR is to allow teachers/caregivers to gather information about each

child’s development across settings through intentional individualized and ongoing observations

and direct prompts during authentic interaction, and to use that information to inform

instructional planning and communicate with families about their child’s development.

Type of Assessment

ProLADR is a teacher/caregiver rating scale designed to be administered three-times during the

academic year (fall, winter, spring). ProLADR includes both observational questions and direct

prompts. By design, the scale items (and the physical presentation of the items) measure and

inform a child’s developmental growth and progress over time. Results can be used to assist in

planning individual or small group instruction of children with Individual Education Plans,

special learning needs, and children learning English as a second language.

http://www.myigdis.com/


THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT

Domain and Subdomain Orientation and Rationale

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) technical report on school

readiness (2010), a child’s readiness to learn in a formal school setting is generally attributed to

five domains:

1. Social and emotional development (e.g., social skills, emotion regulation);

2. Language and early literacy development (e.g., verbal language, early literacy skills);

3. Cognitive and general knowledge (e.g., early mathematics skills, problem solving);

4. Approaches to learning (e.g., ability and inclination to use learning skills); and

5. Physical well-being (e.g., health, motor development).

Social and Emotional Development

Preschool marks the beginning of rapid growth in development and application of lifelong social

and emotional skills including establishing and maintaining positive relationships, setting and

reaching goals, relating to others, and regulating emotions. Broadly speaking, social and

emotional development in preschool includes peer-related, adult-related, and learning-related

skills (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006; McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000). Peer-

related social-emotional skills are evident when children navigate play and work contexts with

same-age peers, children practice and fine-tune interaction skills like social initiation and

response, cooperation, sharing, negotiation, and conflict resolution. As children enter preschool,

adult-related social-emotional skills grow in importance. Preschool environments, in contrast to

infant/toddler classrooms, are more structured, often with larger groups of children and a lead

teacher in ways that reflect formal schooling contexts. As they move to these classrooms,

children must learn acceptable ways to seek adult attention, wait their turn, contribute in the

classroom, and request support. Last, preschool-age children develop a considerable number of

learning-related social-emotional skills that facilitate successful classroom management. In fact,

research studies with kindergarten teachers suggest learning-related skills are among the most

important to kindergarten teachers (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). Learning-related

skills support being part of a classroom of children: hand raising, independent working, sitting

Terminology


still, asking relevant questions, engaging actively in class activities, managing emotions,

following rules and directions, meeting classroom expectations, and so on.

Language and Early Literacy Development

Language development consists of two discrete components: expressive language or the ability

to communicate wants and needs verbally (e.g., speaking) and nonverbally (e.g., American Sign

Language, use of picture schedules), and receptive language, or the ability to demonstrate

understanding and comprehension of spoken language. Language, broadly, incorporates

vocabulary and general knowledge. Research has shown that early vocabulary development is

essential for supporting ongoing language development, and early academic skills, particularly

in the area of early literacy (c.f., Hart & Risley, 1995; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP],

2008; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).

During the preschool years, language development shifts a bit from being central to

communication to supporting early literacy development. Early literacy skills in preschool

include alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness/phonics, concepts of print,

vocabulary/comprehension, and emergent writing (NELP, 2008). These skills really start to

emerge and refine in the year before Kindergarten, and support early reading including:

recognizing the differences between illustration, letters and words; awareness of letter-sound

correspondence; understanding that words are made of sounds that can be blended and

segmented; learning that words have specific beginning and ending sounds; awareness of word

play, like rhyming and alliteration; learning that spoken words have symbols (e.g., letters) that

can be formed and written; that books are read top to bottom and left to write; and knowledge

gain be gained without direct life experience (i.e., learning about exploring a place they have

never visited).

Cognitive and General Knowledge

Early mathematics learning in preschool is essential for later mathematics learning and school

preparedness (Duncan et al., 2007; National Council for the Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). In

preschool, math development is important in the areas of numeracy/number sense, geometry and

measurement, although young children also learn the foundational skills of algebra and data

analysis (Clements & Sarama, 2007). Because math development is not necessarily hierarchical

and sometimes not even number-oriented, young children start to learn math concepts early in

development. In preschool, young children learn to rote count and identify printed numerals

(which is part of internalizing a number line). They count with one-to-one correspondence, notice

and estimate quantity, use mathematical position words (e.g., first, second, third; one-half),

understand that the final number in a counting series represents the total amount, and use simple

mental calculation. Young children identify basic shapes and compare and contrast items using

physical properties.


As children engage in early learning and problem solving, they must be taught to use critical and

hypothesizing skills as they engage in activities that require scientific and cause-effect thinking.

Generating many possible solutions and contemplating differential outcomes encourage broad

and flexible thinking, and prepares young children for advanced and independent thinking.

Approaches to Learning

Temperament and personality are individual traits that vary tremendously across young children.

At the start of any given year, teachers can reasonably anticipate that all of their students will be

different. Yet, the U.S. education system requires that students gradually engage in learning in

similar ways. Schools and teachers value independent thinking and working (as explained in

learning-related social skills), and a range of approaches to learning that broadly represent

engaged and inquisitive exploration. More specifically, as part of a trajectory of learning and

engagement in formal learning, young children must be taught (and usually with individualized

approaches) to demonstrate motivation, persistence, reflection, and willingness/interest/

flexibility in learning.

Physical Well-Being

Physical well-being incorporates motor development and general health. Motor development

includes small movements (fine motor development) and large movement (gross motor

development). Fine motor skills involve those that facilitate eating, dressing, toileting, writing,

and playing with small toys. Gross motor skills involve large muscle movements, like jumping,

running, hopping, climbing, throwing, and arm swinging. Many motor skills require eye-hand

coordination and depth perception, such as throwing a ball toward a target, accurately kicking a

ball, or placing a block on top of a tower.

Motor development facilitates physical movement, general well-being, and life satisfaction. More

specifically, motor skills facilitate social and language development. The more children move

and the larger their movement and play skill repertoire, the more options they have for

interacting with others. Similarly, movement through the environment produces learning

opportunities that facilitate vocabulary and knowledge acquisition.

Guiding Frameworks

To help teachers/caregivers and families fully evaluate a child’s performance, several

developmental frameworks were consulted when creating ProLADR. Specific frameworks

included: The Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework: Promoting

Positive Outcomes in Early Childhood Program Serving Children 3-5 Years Old (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of

Head Start, 2010); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Developmental Milestone


Checklists, and various state-level early childhood indicator systems including Minnesota’s

Early Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIP) content. ProLADR is also being reviewed for

standards in other states.

Alignment with State Standards

In recent years, individual states have been creating standards for early care and education in

their jurisdictions (Scott-Little & Maxwell, 2015). While these standards differ in detail from

state to state, they tend to share several common characteristics. First, these standards describe

desired features of young children’s development related to kindergarten readiness and school

success. Second, in broad ways, these standards are designed to guide the development or

selection of assessment and curriculum resources for early childhood programs. Third, these

early learning standards are typically “comprehensive” or “holistic,” describing a wide and

complete array of child skills and competencies in multiple domains.

ProLADR items are organized into the following developmental domains and subdomains:

Developmental Domains Subdomains

Social and

Emotional

Development

Emotional Development

Self-Concept

Peer-Related Social Competence and Relationships

Adult-Related Social Competence and Relationships

Language and

Literacy

Development

Receptive Language (Listening and Comprehension)

Expressive Language

Emergent Reading: Phonological Awareness

Emergent Reading: Alphabetic Knowledge

Emergent Writing

Cognitive Development

Mathematical and Logical Thinking

Scientific Thinking and Problem Solving

Social Systems Understanding

Physical and Motor

Development

Gross Motor

Fine Motor

Physical Health and Well-Being

Approaches to

Learning

Development

Curiosity

Risk Taking

Imagination and Invention

Persistence

Creativity and the

Arts Development

Creating

Responding


PROCEDURES FOR COMPLETING PROLADR

Training

ProLADR is a teacher rating scale, where individual teachers’ judgments are based on direct and

varied observations of individual children. Prior to using the ProLADR we suggest

teachers/caregivers receive training focused on conducting naturalistic observation with

preschoolers and specifically on how to complete the ProLADR. Conducting high-quality natural

observation requires attention to many important variables. Training in using ProLADR items for

instructional purposes is also recommended.

Recommended Administration Windows

Start Date End Date

Fall Aug 15 Nov 14

Winter Nov 15 Feb 14

Spring Feb 15 May 14

Administration Instructions and Scoring Procedures

ProLADR has been designed to be completed 3 times over the course of a child’s year-long

preschool experience. It can be used with children in P3 or P4, or up to 6 times in the years

before kindergarten. We recommend that ProLADR be completed by teachers who know the

child being rated; in particular, we recommend that ratings be completed by teachers who spend

at least 30% of the school day with the rated child over a period of at least 4 weeks. Teachers

and caregivers working on teams are encouraged to work together on each assessment. Each

teacher/caregiver who interacts with the child at least 30% of the child’s time can conduct

observations and then complete ProLADR items based on (a) direct observation and (b)

teacher/caregiver knowledge of the child’s skills and (c) direct prompting of student behavior or

skills. Teachers/caregivers are encouraged to work together on completing the assessment.

ProLADR includes two types of items. First, teachers are asked to rate a child’s skill based on the

array of observations they have completed, describing a child’s typical level of performance.

Second, some items provide teachers an opportunity to assess child skill directly, by providing

direct prompts to produce child response.

To complete ratings based on teachers’ watching children over time, the assessment process for

the ProLADR begins with observation. For one calendar month, teachers/caregivers should


engage in observation of the child in his/her natural environment and take note of his/her

behaviors as they relate to ProLADR items. Work samples, anecdotal notes, and other forms of

observational evidence from the same period should be examined and evaluated to inform child

development. During the 1-month observation period, ProLADR items can be completed but it

is important not to “close the window” and finalize ratings prematurely. Providing a month of

observation offers children many authentic opportunities to demonstrate each rated skill. By

making notes along the way, the assessor can then review their scores at the end of the 1- month

period and adjust these ratings as necessary.

To complement observations the ProLADR also includes some questions that are provided as

direct prompts. For these items, standardized approaches to determining the student’s skill level

are provided. Each direct prompt question requests the assessor provide a prompt to the child to

determine if he or she has the noted capacity described in the question. These direct-prompt

items can be completed any time during the one-month observation period. Together, these

observational and direct prompt items provide a complete snapshot of the child’s development.

The assessment process concludes with completion of the ProLADR Record Form, where the

teacher collects and finalizes ratings on all ProLADR items. Completion of the scale will take

about 15-30 minutes per child, depending on child-level variability. But ratings should be based

on a series of observations in a range of settings over the period of one calendar month, and

should reflect typical behavior demonstrated by the child. Items should be completed based on

what the child does and can do - during the 1-month observational window. Items reflect

expected development throughout the course of preschool.

Tip

Items with an asterisk align in theory and concept with other measures in the myIGDIs

suite, including the Early Literacy & Early Numeracy IGDIs. We encourage the assessor to

provide these items to the student during use of ProLADR but note the differences in

observations that may occur between types of assessment. This information may be useful

when data is examined for instructional decision making.

Optional

The assessment process for the ProLADR continues with the option of collecting

feedback from families. Families should be encouraged to complete the Family

Survey of Preschool Learning and Development Readiness to gather information

about their perspectives in key developmental areas and to prompt comments about

their interests, concerns, and resources. It is recommended to send a copy of the

Family Survey at the start and end of each preschool year. The Family Survey can be

used as a tool to support Parent-Teacher meetings.


Needed Materials

As we have noted, some ProLADR items are completed by the teacher specifically asking a child

to complete a particular task. For these “direct prompt” items, some everyday materials are

required to complete tasks. When indicated, please be ready to collect the following items for use

during assessment:

● 10 small objects (e.g. crayons, blocks, etc.)

● A visually appealing picture book (e.g. The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Pete the Cat, etc.)

● Printed numerals 0-10, separated from one another and at least ½ inch high

● 3 objects of different sizes (small, medium, large), all small enough to hold in your hand

● 3 basic shapes (e.g., triangle, square, rectangle, circle)

● Scissors

● 10 blocks of the same size

● Objects to compare weight and length.

Scoring Rubrics

Teachers complete ratings for each item. These ratings provide some measure of the extent to

which the child can complete the assessed skill. Details for rating are somewhat different for

observation and direct-prompt items:

Skills observed during the 1-month window

0 Child never demonstrates

1 Child demonstrates infrequently

2 Child demonstrates some of the time

3 Child demonstrates consistently

n/a No opportunity to observe child demonstrating this skill

Skills prompted during the 1-month window

0 Child was unable to perform skill

1 or 2 Child was able to partially perform skill (scoring unique to each item)

3 Child was able to perform skill

n/a No opportunity to prompt the child this skill


Item Examples & Scoring

To aid assessors in understanding how to use observational and direct prompt tasks, examples

of scoring a small set of ProLADR items is provided.

Observational Tasks. The teacher observes the child and determines to what degree the child

engages in the task:

● Task I.5 - Labels own emotions (e.g., sad, mad, happy)

Over the course of the observational month, the teacher can make notes of variation in

the child’s expressed emotion, and note whether the child indicates awareness and

“names” that emotion. After reviewing the observational notes, the teacher completes

rating:

A score of 3 indicates the child uses phrases that show emotion consistently. Statements

like, “I am so mad,” “that makes me happy,” “I’m excited,” “She is sad, I am too.”

A score of 2 indicates the child uses phrases that show emotion some of the time, but

when the opportunity is present sometimes he or she fails to use emotion phrases. For

example, the child takes a toy from another child and says “its mine! You made me mad”

but in another interaction he or she takes the toy and pushes the other child.

A score of 1 indicate the child rarely uses phrases that label emotions. He or she is more

likely to experience emotions without providing labels.

A score of 0 indicates the teachers has never seen the child use an emotion label.

● Task III.17 - Identifies problems

A score of 3 indicates the child frequently identifies problems in his or her natural

environments. A child who consistently identifies problems uses phrases such as “I can’t

get it, its stuck!,” “I want to have a turn, but you have it,” “When can I use that?,” “My

shoes don’t fit,” “This page is torn, I need to fix it,” “He doesn’t have any snack” etc.

These types of phrases illustrate the child observes the situation and is able to call out the

problem.

Scoring is based on a child’s capacity to do the task - not necessarily how often the child

performs the task. For example, you may only observe a child do a task twice, but if both

times the child did the task well, it would be appropriate to score a 3 because the child is

consistently doing it. Observe for quality over quantity.


A score of 2 indicates the child occasionally, but not frequently, uses phrases that

identify the problem, but other times the child observes but is unable to label the

problem and disengages. For example, if the child is at snack and doesn’t get any, a child

who gets a score of 2 would sometimes say “Can I have some please. I don’t have any”

but in other circumstances would not speak up and go through snack without ever getting

anything to actually eat. Similarly, the same child may want a toy but not recognize the

problem and instead walk away and disengage rather than asking for a turn, or say to

adults “he/she has it!” without seeing this as a problem to solve.

A score of 1 indicate the child rarely identifies problems. He or she is more likely to

experience problems as a part of their experience that they feel is out of their control.

Disengaging, crying or frequently moving on to something else without identifying the

problem are all examples of behaviors indicative of children who are not yet able to

identify problems.

A score of 0 indicates the assessor has never seen the child identify a problem.

● Task III.18 - Tries out various strategies to solve problems

A score of 3 indicates the child routinely or frequently attempts to find solutions to

problems in their natural environments. A child who consistently tries out strategies to

solve problems exhibits behaviors indicative of, and uses phrases such as, “How about

you get a turn, then I get a turn?,” “I will trade you this toy for that one,” “If I eat all of

my lunch can I play with it afterwards?,” “Maybe if it I put it on this way it will fit,” “I

fixed it!,” “I helped him/her!” These types of phrases illustrate the child is able to

determine a strategy and try it out to solve the problem.

A score of 2 indicates the child occasionally but not frequently attempts to find

solutions to problems they encounter, or uses phrases that suggest a resolution strategy

some of the time, but other times the child is unable to think of and apply a solution.

For example, if a child wants a toy another has in some instances he or she might ask

for it or offer a trade, and in others he or she might just yell, “He has it!, I’m telling!” or

something similar.

A score of 1 indicate the child rarely is seen to be seeking solutions to problems. He or

she is more likely to experience problems as a part of their experience that they feel is out

of their control and therefore not try strategies that are potential solutions. Disengaging,

crying or frequently moving on to something else without trying to find a strategy to

solve the problem are all examples of behaviors indicative of children who are not yet

able to problem solve.

A score of 0 indicates the assessor has never seen the child solve a problem.

Direct Prompt Tasks. Questions 1.13 and 2.6 are examples of direct prompt items. The teacher

asks the specific prompt and scores the response:


● Task I.13 - Ask the child if they are a boy or a girl

A score of 3 is provided for a child who correctly identifies their sex. A score of 0 is given

for an incorrect response, if the child does not respond, or if the child says "I don't know."

● Task II.6 – Ask child to predict what will happen next in the story

After reading a story, the child is asked to predict what will happen next.

A score of 3 is given to a child who gives any reasonable response based on the story

content.

A score of 0 is given for any response that does not in any way align with the story

presented.

Reducing Bias in Scoring

Bias in scoring can occur when the teacher/caregiver filling out the form consults their previous

season's score of the child's abilities and skills and uses that information to determine the current

assessment's scores. This is an inappropriate use of prior data and does a disservice to accurate

assessment because it unduly influences scores based on teacher self-reference rather than the

child's true skills and abilities. Each season should be considered separately based on

observations and prompts, not on prior scores. As such, it is important that all

teachers/caregivers who complete the ProLADR do NOT flip to previous pages to consult

prior season's scores for each individual child.

Score Interpretation

ProLADR was designed to describe individual child growth and development in the six assessed

domains. Growth and development is examined by raw score change over time. Items are scored

based on the frequency of a child’s behaviors, and higher scores over time suggest a child is

engaging in key skills on a more consistent basis. This is important because consistent

performance of the skill-based items over time suggests proficiency, and gives us confidence that

a child is demonstrating the skills necessary for school preparedness.

Items within subdomains are summed, and subdomains within domains are summed. In short,

each child receives 6 domain scores. All children grow and develop at different rates, but when

children approach the end of their final preschool year, they should be demonstrating most of

the items in a consistent manner. That said, teachers/caregivers should rate children based on

natural interactions and not in accordance with developmental goals. This scale was designed to

be sensitive to individual differences and to produce scores to show areas likely to benefit from

additional instruction. At almost every assessment period, results should show that every child

in the classroom is working to further develop skills in at least one of the domains.


Normative Benchmarks

ProLADR can be used to make “norm-referenced” evaluations of individual child performance.

A normative reference approach to benchmarks identifies a standard percentile to indicate

success or level of intervention need. This means that individual child scores are compared to the

broad range of scores by children in the same season and grade. Children whose ratings exceed

the 50th percentile – the large group average – are judged to be proficient, and those children

with scores below the 25th percentile are considered candidates for intervention in that particular

domain. Normative benchmarks at the 50th and 25th percentile by age and domain are provided

on next page.

● Tier I: Strong Progress --- Domain scores at or above the 50th percentile indicate the

child’s performance in that domain is developing as expected.

● Cut Range: Moderate Progress --- Domain scores between the 25th and 50th percentile

indicate that the child’s performance in that domain warrants attention and monitoring,

with careful attention to the possible need of early intervention.

● Tier II/III: At-risk Progress --- scores at or below the 25th percentile indicate the

child’s performance in that domain is not at an expected level. Further

instructional/intervention support should be offered.


Age Group 50th

Percentile

Benchmark

25th

Percentile

Benchmark

P3

Social and

Emotional

Fall 65 45

Winter 70 47

Spring 76 63

Language

and Literacy

Fall 48 28

Winter 55 30

Spring 68 52

Cognitive Fall 26 12

Winter 28 20

Spring 40 30

Physical

and Motor

Fall 22 11

Winter 24 15

Spring 27 21

Approaches to

Learning

Fall 21 10

Winter 22 12

Spring 27 19

Creativity

and the Arts

Fall 15 6

Winter 18 8

Spring 20 15

P4

Social and

Emotional

Fall 72 59

Winter 74 61

Spring 80 71

Language

and Literacy

Fall 60 42

Winter 67 46

Spring 75 65

Cognitive Fall 52 42

Winter 57 45

Spring 61 54

Physical

and Motor

Fall 18 16

Winter 19 17

Spring 20 18

Approaches to

Learning

Fall 28 23

Winter 31 24

Spring 34 29

Creativity

and the Arts

Fall 16 13

Winter 17 14

Spring 19 16


Normative Sample

For the purposes of normative benchmark, 442 3-year olds and 1,052 4-year olds were included

in the analysis. Mean age and range by season is provided below.

Age Group

Mean Age Range

P3

Fall 3.38 2.8-4.6

Winter 3.62 3.0-4.7

Spring 3.79 3.2-4.8

P4

Fall 4.69 3.4-6.0

Winter 4.93 3.7-6.2

Spring 5.11 4.0-6.5

Demographic information collected from the normative sample indicated students were sampled

from six states (MN, WI, IL, KS, SC and TX) and included public preschool programs, family

childcare programs, private preschool programs and subsidized school readiness programs.

Programs included full-day and half-day programs and a variety of curricula were used to

engage student in developmentally appropriate early childhood activities.

Across the sample, 33% of rated children were eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch, and 20%

received special education services through an IEP or IFSP. Forty-seven percent of students in

the norming group were male. Regarding ethnicity, 78% were White, 9% were Black, 7% were

Hispanic/Latino, 2% were Asian American, 3% were Native American and <1% reported other

(including Bi-racial, Polish, and Arabic).

USING THE ASSESSMENT WITH ALL CHILDREN

The focus of scoring is identifying areas of need for instructional purposes, which is sensitive to

individual differences and classroom needs. All children have strengths and weaknesses, and

one important interpretation of scores is that all children will be working on further development

of skills – regardless of whether they have an identified disability, are learning English, or are

experiencing stressful life events, etc. Because children are rated on their typical behavior and

classroom performance, individual differences are captured in scoring.

Also, because items are behavioral and developmental, response bias due to culture and value is

minimized. Accordingly, we feel the items are generally reflective of developmental objectives

and as culturally neutral and respectful as possible.


SHARING RESULTS WITH FAMILIES

ProLADR results are summarized in a report for families that is easy to access and interpret.

The Summary Report (last pages of Record Forms) is completed for each child. Summary

scores are presented in a table format that lists domain totals along with any items that reflect

skills for which the child needs developmental support at home or school. Each form is

comprehensive across one academic year to encourage discussions about individual needs and

growth across the academic year.

Additionally, ProLADR is now compatible with the myIGDIs Data System. Managing your data

and generating reports electronically at login.myigdis.com.

Use the Family Survey of Preschool Learning and Development Readiness to collect

information provided by the child’s primary parent/guardian.

USING RESULTS TO INFORM INSTRUCTION

ProLADR can be used to support instruction and intervention. Because ProLADR items are

behavioral and discrete units presented clearly across domains, it is straightforward to use child-

level results to inform instruction. Many of the items are addressed in typical curriculum and are

part and parcel of preschool classroom experiences (i.e., sharing with peers, listening to

instruction, following classroom rules). Items may require explicit and targeted instruction or

scaffolding, particularly those related to early academic skills (i.e., literacy, math, problem

solving). Teachers/caregivers should evaluate each child’s observationally-based rating scale

scores tri-annually to evaluate and plan instruction objectives.

ProLADR results can be used to plan instruction for individuals and small groups. For example,

if several children are identified on the ProLADR as needing to demonstrate sharing more

consistently, teachers/caregivers could create semi-structured play groups with these children that

might involve more adult time than usual in order to model, scaffold, and instruct on the target

skill of sharing.

Tip

ProLADR was normed with full day and half day programs. If you are in a half-day program

it is important to try to observe and prompt for all domains. This means you may need to

strategically make use of the full one-month window so that you can balance instructional

time with observations of child level skills.


Teachers/caregivers should use professional judgment and discretion to prioritize developmental

and learning needs for individual children. Children should be demonstrating most of the items

consistently by kindergarten entrance. Teachers/caregivers should note as part of the scoring and

report sharing processes areas of child growth and need, and monitor instruction and learning

accordingly. It is recommended that teachers/caregivers use specific instructional planning for

each child to note needs and teaching targets.

TECHNICAL ADEQUACY

Development of the ProLADR followed a specific, expert process to establish construct validity.

Items were selected using prominent theoretical frameworks for child development (see

“Theoretical Framework for Development” earlier in this manual) and contributions from three

child development experts – two researchers with collectively over 25 years of experience

developing assessment tools for preschool and early elementary school, and a former early

childhood educator with over 20 years of preschool classroom experience. Theoretical

frameworks were read; items were written independently by the three expert contributors; items

were reconciled; items were compared against theoretical frameworks; items were clarified and

combined; and items were reworded to be behavioral and discrete. Both experts contributed to

content to ensure theoretical and practical representation.

The ProLADR research team engaged in two years of research to iteratively revise the protocol,

items, and administration prompts to create the most efficient and psychometrically robust

testing experience. Using Kane’s (2013) model for demonstrating validity the ProLADR features

four claims regarding interpretations and uses:

(1) ProLADR can be used to inform instructional decisions by providing teachers

with information about student performance in six early childhood domains.

(2) ProLADR includes item that are theoretically aligned and empirically robust.

(3) ProLADR items are sensitive to growth over the academic year.

(4) ProLADR can be used to screen performance and identify students who may be

candidates for intervention within each domain.

Item Level Analysis

Over the course of two years, all ProLADR items were iteratively evaluated and revised. Our

final item level analyses produced descriptive statistics, item means, p-values, and item to total

correlations for each age group within a classical test theory model.


P3 ProLADR Items

3-year old ProLADR performance across the academic year generally demonstrates an increase

in performance across the academic year as depicted below.

P3 Descriptive Performance

FALL WINTER SPRING

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Total Score 169.11 90.13 169.30 107.02 217.35 96.12

Domain I 55.09 27.81 56.21 31.11 65.01 27.88

Domain II 42.08 25.08 42.88 31.47 58.04 26.99

Domain III 23.44 15.16 24.40 18.54 34.03 16.16

Domain IV 18.52 11.47 17.55 13.29 22.65 11.81

Domain V 11.13 17.62 16.41 12.42 21.98 11.17

Domain VI 7.70 12.35 11.86 8.72 15.65 7.70

The ProLADR P3 items are featured in all six domains, with sub-scores computed to illustrate 3-

year old performance profiles. Item means and standard deviations by domain are provided in a

technical appendix made available on the myIGDIs website (www.myigdis.com). Within each

table the average score, or item mean, for each item is provided (range is 0-3) as well as the

standard deviation.

Item statistics were also computed to evaluate the degree to which each item contributes to the

test. All items were evaluated with the goal of including items with polytomous p-values greater

than .2, and item to total correlations greater than .2. Results indicated eight items produced p-

values below .2. These evaluation team reasoned these items were too difficult to meaningfully

illustrate growth over time and therefore were removed or revised. Item-to-total correlations

were appropriate, with no items removed as a result of item-to-total evaluations.

P4 ProLADR Items

4-year old ProLADR performance across the academic year generally demonstrates an increase

in performance across the academic year as depicted below.

P4 Descriptive Performance

FALL WINTER SPRING

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Total Score 212.68 81.48 223.88 95.43 251.32 82.46

Domain I 63.33 22.25 65.45 25.04 71.45 22.33

Domain II 50.29 24.23 55.50 28.20 65.72 24.27

Domain III 42.67 18.65 45.16 21.88 51.67 18.34

Domain IV 17.89 7.52 17.82 8.71 19.11 8.77

Domain V 24.29 10.32 25.25 14.70 27.30 12.22

Domain VI 14.21 6.22 14.70 7.18 16.08 7.04


The ProLADR P4 items are featured in all six domains, with sub-scores computed to illustrate 4-

year old performance profiles. Item means and standard deviations by domain are provided in a

technical appendix made available on the myIGDIs website (www.myigdis.com). Within each

table the average score, or item mean, for each item is provided (range is 0-3) as well as the

standard deviation.

Item statistics were also computed to evaluate the degree to which each item contributes to the

test. All items were evaluated with the goal of including items with polytomous p-values greater

than .2, and item to total correlations greater than .2. Results indicated eight items produced p-

values below .2. These evaluation team reasoned these items were too difficult to meaningfully

illustrate growth over time and therefore were removed or revised. Item-to-total correlations

were appropriate, with no items removed as a result of item-to-total evaluations.

Reliability

Reliability coefficients were computed using ProLADR Fall assessment data for each domain. We

computed internal reliability as Chronbach’s alpha. Alpha is the average of all possible Spearman-

Brown corrected split half correlations. Results are reported in the table below. Results indicate

ProLADR obtained excellent reliability within each domain.

Number of Items Crohnbach’s Alpha

Domain I 35 .947

Domain II 39 .924

Domain III 23 .938

Domain IV 13 .815

Domain V 12 .958

Domain VI 7 .909

Split half reliability was also computed by domain. To produce split half reliability coefficients we

randomly divided items in each domain into two parallel forms and correlated the split form scores

to produce a split-half reliability estimate for each domain.

Fall split half correlations

AGE 3 AGE 4

Domain I 0.98 0.96

Domain II 0.93 0.95

Domain III 0.84 0.91

Domain IV 0.87 0.77

Domain V 0.94 0.93

Domain VI 0.88 0.89

Finally, we examined, internal consistency by examining the standard error of measurement for

each item; as child level abilities are dependent in the error inherent in each item that contributes to

their score. In classical test theory, each domain can be evaluated using item to total domain score


correlations where items that have significant standard error of measurement will have depressed

item to total correlations and thus depress mean item to total correlations with the domain score.

Mean item to total correlations by domain are provided below for age 3 and age 4 across seasons:

Mean item to total correlations across seasons

AGE 3 AGE 4

Domain I 0.86 0.72

Domain II 0.78 0.63


Domain IV 0.76 0.81

Domain V 0.87 0.86

Domain VI 0.91 0.91

Evidence to Support Validity Claims

ProLADR is designed to detect changes in student performance across time with the expectation

that instruction is differentiated based on student performance in between assessments that should,

if appropriately engaged, change student performance by accelerating development, or maintaining

development for those students who are performing above the Tier I, or success at the universal

curriculum level. As a result, we expect moderate correlations between fall, winter and spring

scores on the ProLADR given that instruction may impact student performance over time.

Correlations between seasons are reported below.

Correlations within domain across seasons for P3

FALL TO WINTER WINTER TO SPRING

Domain I 0.55 0.67

Domain II 0.62 0.55


Domain IV 0.58 0.53

Domain V 0.59 0.49

Domain VI 0.57 0.50

Correlations within domain across seasons for P4

FALL TO WINTER WINTER TO SPRING

Domain I 0.40 0.57

Domain II 0.60 0.57


Domain IV 0.50 0.40

Domain V 0.59 0.43

Domain VI 0.49 0.42


REFERENCES

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani,

L.,

... Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology,

43, 1428-1446.

Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Building blocks – SRA real math grade pre-K.

Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw Hill.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young

American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-

related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 21, 471-490.

McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early

academic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 15, 307-329.

Minnesota Department of Education (2005). Early childhood indicators of progress:

Minnesota’s early learning standards. St. Paul, MN: Author.

National Conference on State Legislatures (2010). Technical report: State approaches to

school readiness assessment. Available at http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/ncsl-

technical-report-state-approaches-to-school.aspx.

National Council for the Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school

mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Early Literacy Panel, (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early

literacy panel: A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implication for

intervention. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers' judgments of problems in

the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147-166.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998) (Eds.). Preventing reading difficulties in young

children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families

Office of Head Start (2010). The Head Start child development and early learning

framework: Promoting positive outcomes in early childhood programs serving children

3-5 years old. Arlington, VA: Author.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J., (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child

Development, 69, 848-872.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/ncsl-technical-report-state-approaches-to-school.aspx

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/ncsl-technical-report-state-approaches-to-school.aspx

profile of preschool learning and development readiness ... · alisha’s research interests...

Documents