Running head: ASSESSMENT REPORT

Integrated Assessment Report

Julia Hart

The George Washington University

1

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Child: “Reese” DOB: 5/31/10DOT: 3/18/14, 3/19/14, 3/21/14Age: 45 months, 17(18, 20) daysSetting: School- classroom, playground, and office

Reason for Screening

This screening measure was completed for the educational benefit of the scorer as part of

a course requirement.

Assessment Procedures

Reese was evaluated using two assessment tools, The Assessment, Evaluation, and

Programming System for Infants and Children - 2nd edition (AEPS-2; Bricker, Capt, & Pretti-

Frontczak, 2002) and The Mullen Scales of Early Learning- AGS edition (the Mullen; Mullen,

1995). The Mullen was conducted on the afternoon of March 19 from 1:30-2:45. The

assessment took place in an office at Reese’s school, where there was a small table to sit at and

minimal distractions. The AEPS-2 subtests were completed on the afternoons of March 18 and

21. All AEPS-2 observations were conducted within the context of typical classroom routines,

either in the classroom or on the playground. In the classroom, two teachers and between five

and ten children were present. Some items on the AEPS-2 required direct testing, such as asking

Reese to copy shapes or write letters, but most were observed during afternoon free play time.

No new materials were introduced and only typical materials at the classroom’s writing table

(crayons and paper) or on the school’s playground (balls) were necessary to conduct the AEPS

subtests.

Reese was assessed using the fine motor, gross motor, and social communication subtests

of the AEPS-2 (Bricker et al, 2002). The AEPS-2 is a criterion-referenced assessment tool that

can be used to monitor a child’s development over time and across multiple developmental

2

ASSESSMENT REPORT

domains. A criterion-referenced test is one in which a child’s performance is compared to a

predetermined set of skills. Teachers, interventionists, and other practitioners can use the results

from the AEPS-2 to plan curricula and interventions that will support the child’s development

and needs.

The AEPS-2 (Bricker et al, 2002) is organized into content areas, such as fine motor,

gross motor, or adaptive skills for two age groups, birth to three years and three to six years.

Each content area is then divided into strands. The strands are further broken down into goals,

which then list specific objectives, or skills, which can be assessed. Each goal and objective is

scored numerically, with a 0, 1, or 2. A score of 0 reflects that the child does not meet the

criterion; a score of 1 reflects that the child inconsistently meets the criterion; and a score of 2

displays that the child consistently meets the criterion. Additionally, scores on objectives can be

given notes to describe the performance or circumstances. The notes are: A= assistance

provided, B= behavior interfered, D= direct test, M= modification/adaptation, Q= quality of

performance, R= report.

The complete Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Mullen, 1995) was completed to assess

Reese’s overall development. The Mullen is a standardized, norm-referenced assessment,

meaning that it is conducted in a standardized manner and the scores can be compared amongst a

population. The Mullen is divided into five scales: Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Visual Reception,

Receptive Language, and Expressive Language. Each scale is made up of 28-35 items that are

scored numerically, typically with a 0 or 1, sometimes up to 5. Higher number scores reflect a

test item that has multiple parts or trials. The test indicates starting items for each age range, so

that children will not be expected to complete the entire scale. To begin the scale, a basal of

three consecutive items with at least 1-point earned must be established. Once a basal is

3

ASSESSMENT REPORT

established, all items above the basal are given the maximum score possible. Administration of

the scale ends when the child scores 0 on three consecutive items.

Scoring the Mullen requires each scale’s raw score to be located on a table for the child’s

each group. The table provides the corresponding T-score, which is a standardized score. T-

scores are also linked to percentile ranks and described as following: scores of 70-80 are “very

high,” 61-69 are “above average,” 40-60 are “average,” 31-39 are “below average,” and 20-30

are “very low.”

The materials needed to complete the Mullen scales were grouped by domain ahead of

time to allow the assessment to proceed smoothly and limit wait-time for Reese. Most materials

were found in the kit which accompanies the test’s manuals, but a few items, such as coins and

masking tape to mark the floor for the gross motor section were acquired prior to administration.

Additionally, pieces of paper were cut to size and photocopies of figures were made to complete

the fine motor scale.

Background Information

Reese is a three-year-old boy who lives in the Washington, DC area with his mother,

father, and infant brother. While the family resides in the city during the week, on weekends

they stay at their farm, about 2 hours from the city in rural Virginia. Reese attends nursery

school five days a week in Washington, DC. Reese’s teachers report that he is a happy boy who

enjoys school. They report no concerns about his overall development, but did note that they

recommended a speech and language pathologist evaluate Reese’s articulation as his speech can

be difficult to understand. Reese’s parents reported that they have taken him to an

otolaryngologist who found that there was fluid in Reese’s ears, which is affecting his hearing.

They have chosen to wait on surgery, but expect that he may require an adenoidectomy.

4

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Observations

This assessment was completed over three afternoons. Reese appeared to be slightly tired

on the first afternoon, evidenced by rubbing his eyes and putting his head down on the table.

Reese went willingly with the familiar assessor to complete the Mullen in an unfamiliar office.

He smiled and stated that he was ready to play some games. During the administration of the

Mullen, Reese began to sigh and look away while completing the fine motor section, suggesting

frustration. A break was taken following the fine motor section and Reese chose to eat a small

snack. Following the receptive language scale, Reese took another break and went with the

assessor into the teacher’s lounge to get some water. Toward the end of the final section of the

Mullen, Reese began to put his head down on the table but sat up and smiled when told that he

was nearly done. Overall, Reese appeared comfortable throughout testing.

Assessment Results and Interpretations

Mullen Score Table:

Raw Score

T-Score(mean=50, SD=10)

Confidence Interval (90%)

Percentile Rank

Descriptive Cat

Age Equivalent

Gross Motor

-------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ---------- -----------

Visual Reception

45 61 54-68 86 Above Average

52 months

Fine Motor

37 46 38-54 34 Average 42 months

Receptive Language

43 64 56-62 92 Above Average

55 months

Expressive Language

46 70 63-77 98 Very High 60 months

AEPS Score Table:Area Raw Score Area Percent Score

Gross Motor 28/34 82Fine Motor 18/30 60Social Communication 98/98 100

5

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Gross Motor

The Mullen does not provide standardized score information on the Gross Motor scale for

children over 38 months, as the items on the scale are aimed at younger children. Reese

performed strongly on many of the items on the gross motor subtest of the AEPS-2. Reese’s raw

score on the AEPS-2 gross motor subtest was 28 out of a possible 34. This raw score calculates

to an area percent score of 82%.

Most of the objectives on the Gross Motor subtest were observed on the school’s

playground. The playground provided multiple opportunities for Reese to demonstrate his skills

within the context of play. Reese was observed climbing up and down stairs of a play structure,

jumping from platforms or objects, and throwing a tennis ball for the school’s dog. The school

did not have a two-wheel bicycle on which to observe Reese, so Reese’s parent provided a report

of his bicycling skills. He is not able to ride a two-wheel bicycle without training wheels, but is

successful with training wheels. Reese was beginning to learn to skip, which earned him a 1 on

that objective, but struggled with hopping when directly tested. Reese was only able to make 2

consecutive hops forward, earning him a 0 on that objective. This may be due to the fluid in his

ears affecting his balance.

Fine Motor

Reese earned a raw score of 37 on the fine motor scale of the Mullen. This reflects a T-

score of 46, which places Reese in the 34th percentile for children his age. This percentile

indicates that Reese performed the same as or better than 34% of children in his age group on

this test. While his score on the Mullen fine motor scale was classified as “average,” it was the

lowest of all his scores and his only score to fall below the mean (of 50). The fine motor scale of

the Mullen was the only scale on which Reese reached a ceiling, meaning that he had three

6

ASSESSMENT REPORT

consecutive scores of 0. On the AEPS-2, Reese earned a raw score of 18 out of a possible area

score of 30, reflecting an area score of 60%. Reese performed well on measures involving

manipulating small objects on both tests, such as building with small blocks (item FM 21) and

folding paper (item FM 25) on the Mullen or stringing beads (Strand A, Goal 1) on the AEPS-2.

Reese was also skillful at using scissors to cut round and straight lines (AEPS Strand A, Goal 2,

and Mullen item FM 24).

On both tests, Reese struggled with tasks requiring him to draw shapes, lines, and letters.

Reese has a strong pencil grip, using his thumb, pointer, and middle fingers to grasp the pencil in

a tripod (Strand B, Goal 1 on the AEPS Fine Motor subtest), so his drawing abilities are not

limited by an improper grip. Reese was able to complete item FM 23 on the Mullen, which

required him to draw a line within a path, staying inside the lines, demonstrating some

proficiency with a pencil. Reese’s teachers reported that he creates representational drawings,

such as suns, people, and spiders, which is reflected in his score of 2 on this item of the AEPS

(Strand B, objective 2.1). Reese struggled to copy simple and complex shapes on the AEPS-2

(Strand B, objectives 2.2 and 2.3)- squares, triangles, crosses and Ts. On the Mullen, Reese also

struggled with copying shapes and patterns of, squares circles and lines or circles within circles

(FM 22 and 26). Reese’s low scores on these test items caused his Fine Motor Scale score to be

lower than his other area scores.

Visual Reception

Reese earned a raw score of 45 on the visual reception Mullen scale, which translates to a

T-score of 61 (with mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10). This score places Reese’s

performance in the 86th percentile. This percentile indicates that Reese performed the same as or

7

ASSESSMENT REPORT

better than 86% of children in his age group on this test. His performance is classified as “above

average.” There is not an equivalent subtest on the AEPS-2.

Reese performed strongly on measures requiring him to match details, such as identifying

a matching flower from four choices (item VR25) or matching letters (VR 28). Reese

demonstrated memory for pictures on item VR 31, when he correctly identified three images he

had seen previously from an array of ten. Item VR 26, which required Reese to correctly

identify under which cup a toy was hidden, was difficult for Reese. He identified the hidden

object on only one of three trials, which earned him a score of 0 on this item. Reese also had

difficulty with item VR 29, which involved discriminating left from right. On this item, Reese

was asked to match a picture facing a particular direction from three of the same image, facing

different directions. This performance suggests that Reese may not yet distinguish images based

on directionality. However, on a similar item, VR 30, Reese was able to correctly identify letters

and letter combinations turned in four different possible orientations for five of eight trials.

These scores may reflect that Reese is able to distinguish letters from images and has a beginning

understanding that letters only have meaning at certain orientations, a pre-reading skill.

Receptive Language

Reese earned a raw score of 43 on the receptive language scale of the Mullen, which

translates to a T-score of 64 (with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10). This score places

Reese’s performance in the 92nd percentile. This percentile indicates that Reese performed the

same as or better than 92% of children in his age group on this test. His performance is

classified as “above average.” No equivalent subtest on the AEPS-2 was completed.

Reese demonstrated his ability to follow two-step commands on item RL 25, but

struggled with three-step commands on item RL-31. When given the instructions “Put this block

8

ASSESSMENT REPORT

on the chair, then put the cover on the box, then give the crayon to me” Reese put the block in

the box, put the cover on the box, then handed the crayon to the assessor, demonstrating his

ability to remember two of the three directions. Reese demonstrated his knowledge of size and

length concepts on items RL 26 and RL 28, correctly identifying the smaller box between two

choices and the longer stick between two choices on every trial. When asked to identify colors

given a set of eight crayons (item RL 27), Reese identified five correctly. Reese confused black

and brown, pointing to the black crayon when asked to identify the brown and pointing to the

brown when asked to show the black crayon, a common error for children his age. Reese did not

correctly identify the green crayon, which may have been due to the color of the label on the

crayon not being a very bright shade of green. Reese was able to identify red, yellow, blue,

purple, and orange.

Reese correctly answered nine of twelve general knowledge questions on item RL 30.

Reese provided his full name, gender, and age. He also answered how many eyes he has, what

we use to wash our hands (soap and water), what tells us the time (clock), why we have

refrigerators (to keep things cold), how many legs a horse has (by holding up 4 fingers), and why

houses have roofs (“so it doesn’t rain on us”). Reese was unable to identify two coins, calling

them all “money.” Reese incorrectly counted that he had only four fingers on one hand and

answered that if you cut a banana in half you will have “a lot” of pieces. When asked questions

regarding comparative concepts fro item RL 29, Reese correctly answered six of ten questions.

Reese was able to identify pictures to demonstrate knowledge of same, not the same, most, least,

first, and last. Reese did not identify images for second, middle, left, or nearest.

Reese correctly counted out eight blocks when the assessor asked him to hand her eight,

but did not correctly provide her with six blocks (item RL 32). When asked for six blocks, Reese

9

ASSESSMENT REPORT

counted all the blocks on the table into the assessor’s hand, 11 in total. However, when asked for

eight, he correctly placed eight blocks into the assessor’s hand. This performance reflects that

Reese has a strong sense of one-to-one correspondence, and may have simply wanted to count all

the blocks rather than following directions. Finally, Reese correctly identified 11 capital letters

from two arrays of seven letters. While this was not enough to earn him any points for item RL

33, it was an acceptable performance for a child his age.

Expressive Language

Reese’s raw score on the expressive language scale of the Mullen was 46, which

translates to a T-score of 70 (with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10). This T-score

places Reese’s performance in the 98th percentile, which is classified as “very high.” This

percentile indicates that Reese performed the same as or better than 98% of children in his age

group on this test. Reese’s raw score on the AEPS-2 Social Communication subtest was 98 out

of a possible 98, 100%. Given that the AEPS-2 is a test for children through age 6, this was a

very strong performance. Many of the AEPS-2 items were scored based on the report of Reese’s

teachers, as the subtest was quite long and he did not use every form of language in the course of

one afternoon. Reese used long and varied sentences during both the Mullen and the AEPS-2,

which demonstrated his strong grasp of language.

On the Mullen, Reese was able to answer many questions. Item EL 23 had Reese answer

the following: “What do you do when you are thirsty?” to which Reese replied, “drink water,”

“What do you do when you are hungry?” to which Reese replied “eat,” and “What do you do

when you are sleepy?” to which Reese answered, “sleep.” Reese also correctly answered seven

of ten verbal analogies, identifying lunch as the meal we have at night, answering “dark” when

10

ASSESSMENT REPORT

asked, “A pound is light; a ton is _______,” and answering “soft” to “A house is made of wood;

a tent is made of ________.”

Reese repeated simple sentences on item EL 25 after the assessor explained that the

sentences did not have to be true. When asked to repeat, “I have a little cat,” Reese frowned and

said quietly, “But I don’t have a cat anymore,” referring to a pet that died last year. With some

reassurances, Reese correctly repeated the sentences as asked. Reese struggled with the longer

sentences on item EL 28. He attempted to repeat the first sentence, but said the words in the

wrong order. When asked to repeat, “My dog barks every day when the mailman rings the bell,”

Reese replied, “but my dog doesn’t do that.” Perhaps Reese would have had more success with

this item had the sentences reflected the realities of his life.

Reese correctly defined nine of fourteen terms on item EL 26, testing his oral vocabulary.

Reese correctly identified a hat as something “you wear on your head,” boots as something “you

wear on your feet,” umbrella as “you hold it when it’s raining,” a hammer as “for hitting nails-

sometimes you hit your finger!” basket as “you hold something in it,” tire as “it makes cars roll,”

goat as “a kind of sheep,” glue as “it makes things stick,” and canoe as “a kind of boat.” When

asked to define car, Reese answered, “it can roll,” which may have been referring to a toy car,

but was not the target answer, which would include driving it, riding in it, or having an

engine/wheels. When asked what a letter is, Reese initially did not answer, but when pushed

said they were “for counting,” perhaps confusing letters with numbers. Reese did not provide

any answer when asked what a dime was or what a faucet was. This item was near the end of the

test and Reese was starting to appear tired. Additionally, Reese defined candle as “you blow on

it,” which missed the target answer regarding fire or providing light.

11

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Reese answered six of eight practical reasoning questions correctly. One question Reese

did not answer correctly reflected his complex thinking pattern. When asked “what should you

do when it starts to get dark in your house?” Reese responded, “Did you know there are experts

that can fix the electricity in your walls? Maybe a grownup could call the expert.” This was a

very complex answer rather than the target answer of “turn on a light.” This response may

reflect Reese’s experience with power outages or electrical problems in his home. In the reality

of 2014 life, Reese may expect lights to be on all day, never experiencing the need to turn on a

light as the sun goes down.

On the AEPS-2 Social Communication subtest, Reese was identified as using many

functions and forms of language. Reese scored a 2 on all objectives on this subtest, indicating

mastery of the items. Reese “uses words, phrases, or sentences to inform, direct, ask, questions,

and express anticipation, imagination, affect, and emotions” which is Goal 1 of Strand A on this

subtest. This includes using language in pretend play, talking about anticipated events, labeling

emotions, talking about past events, making commands, asking questions, and informing others.

Examples of these objectives were found as Reese discussed his plans for spring break, played

with dolls in the block area, expressed anger at a peer, told a friend that his mommy made his

lunch, and asked about why a pet had died. Reese utilized conversational rules during the

observation period, demonstrating the objectives of Strand A, Goal 2. This included alternating

speaker and listener roles, responding to topic changes, asking clarifying questions, responding

to questions, initiating relevant topics, and responding to others’ initiations. Reese also met the

objectives of Goal 3, “establishes and varies social-communicative roles.” This included varying

his voice to impart meaning and using socially appropriate postures when talking to peers and a

younger child.

12

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Reese utilized multiple parts of speech, phrases, and purposes of language. Under Strand

B of the Social Communication subtest, Reese scored a 2 on all Goals and objectives. The Goals

on this strand included using verbs, using noun inflections, asking questions, using pronouns,

and using descriptive words. Reese used verbs in many sentences, including “We can put chairs

in the house corner,” “They’re outside,” “I went to the farm this weekend,” and “We are building

a castle.” Reese asked many questions and his teacher reported multiple examples such as “can I

play with the Magnatiles?” “Is it lunch time?” and “Why did the chicken die?” And finally,

Reese used many descriptive words in play, such as describing his doll as having “a yellow hat,”

his car as “the fastest,” and the Hulk as “stronger than Ironman.”

Overall, both tests demonstrate that Reese has a rich vocabulary and a strong grasp of the

English language. Reese performed strongly on both tests and his scores support each other in

the assessment of Reese’s skills.

Recommendations

Reese’s scores reflect age-appropriate development across all areas of development.

Relative to his other scores, Reese’s performance on the fine motor scale of the Mullen and the

fine motor subtest of the AEPS demonstrates that this is an area in which Reese may benefit

from additional support. To support Reese’s motor skill development, his teachers and family

can provide him with additional opportunities to practice drawing and writing.

To strengthen his finger muscles and pencil grip, it is recommended that Reese primarily

draw with short, stubby crayons. These require the child to use an appropriate grip and require

the child to place adequate pressure on the crayon to make a mark, as opposed to markers, which

leave a mark with minimal pressure. One brand, Crayon Rocks, makes an ideal crayon for this

stage of development. Reese’s teachers reported that he enjoys creating books, particularly

13

ASSESSMENT REPORT

dictating long and complex superhero stories. To build upon this interest, Reese’s teachers may

want to work with him to add illustrations to these stories, giving him an authentic opportunity to

hone his drawing skills.

Reese’s parents and teachers may want to begin working with him on writing his name.

This is a skill that most children learn by the time they are 4 years old. Reese was able to form a

sideways E when asked to write his name, but struggled with the other letters. He also expressed

that he couldn’t do it, so frustration may be a factor. Rather than initially sitting down with

crayons or pencils to practice writing, Reese can be given chances to form his letters with

playdough (on a laminated name mat), using shaving cream, with letter stamps, or with paint (on

a large surface). These opportunities will give Reese experience with the shapes of his letters, so

that when he is ready to begin writing, the forms will be familiar to him. If letter writing

continues to be a struggle, the Handwriting Without Tears program is a popular method of

teaching these skills in a fun and multisensory manner.

Reese’s language scores were very high, reflecting an area of strength. Because Reese

is so skillful with language, his parents and teachers can continue to challenge him in this

domain. Reese may enjoy word games or riddles. He may also enjoy learning some simple

jokes, which he will likely understand given his strong grasp of language. Reese’s parents and

teachers can continue to read new and interesting books to expose Reese to a diverse vocabulary.

It is important to provide lots of enrichment for Reese in areas of strength as well as areas of

relative weakness.

Summary

Reese’s overall development appears to be on target. Reese’s scores on the AEPS-2 and

the Mullen indicate that he has very strong language skills. His expressive language score on the

14

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Mullen was particularly high, placing him in the 98th percentile. While language skills are an

area of great strength for Reese, fine motor skills were an area of relative weakness on both tests.

Because Reese’s scores still qualified as “average” on the Mullen, there is no cause for alarm,

but his family and teachers may want to provide additional opportunities for Reese to hone these

skills.

15

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Reflection

Because Reese is a student in my class, I had a strong relationship with him and his

family prior to completing this assessment. I had knowledge of his history from meeting with

his parents on multiple occasions, so I did not need to ask any additional questions for the

purposes of this report. I chose to complete this assessment on Reese because I knew he would

be at school every afternoon, which allowed me plenty of time. Additionally, his mother is a

teacher and I know she is very supportive of my education; therefor she was happy to give me

permission to assess Reese.

Completing the AEPS-2 was relatively simple, as I had experience with it from last

semester. This was my first time administering the 3-6 year old subtests, so that made it a

slightly different experience. The Social-Communication subtest was the most challenging,

simply due to its length. Reese is a child who talks a lot, so it was not hard to find examples for

most of the objectives. For those that I did not observe during the course of one afternoon, I

asked my co-teacher to think of examples of his language use with me.

Completing the Mullen was a more challenging experience. There were many specific

materials to be prepared ahead of time, which I chose to do by grouping materials for each scale

in a larger zip-top bag and adding lists of any additional items I might need. I did not account

for materials I might need if Reese did not establish a basal at the level I expected, which

happened on the Visual Reception scale. Fortunately, I had all the additional materials in the bag

with me. Because I had completed the fine motor subtest of the AEPS-2 prior to beginning the

Mullen, I knew this could be an area of difficulty for Reese. Rather than beginning at the

marked starting point for children over 45 months, I choose to begin a set above, allowing Reese

to experience some easier items before coming to items that might be more challenging.

16

ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Gross Motor scale of the Mullen confused me initially, so I completed the items

unnecessarily. It was not until I went to score the test that I realized my mistake. Fortunately,

the items completed were not particularly challenging for Reese and it seemed as though he

enjoyed the physical activity. Other than the gross motor section, scoring the Mullen was not

very difficult. The tables for converting raw scores to T-scores were very clear and the record

form was simple and clear.

The time necessary to complete the Mullen was the biggest obstacle for me, because I

had to arrange for another teacher to take my place in my classroom while I was off with Reese.

The AEPS-2 was far easier in terms of time, because I could assess Reese within the general

classroom setting. Even AEPS-2 items requiring direct testing were simple to complete. At one

point, while assessing Reese, I had several other children join us at the table and ask to do the

“games” too. It would be feasible to assess multiple children at the same time using the AEPS

objectives.

Between the two tests, I feel as though a relatively complete picture of Reese’s skills was

achieved. The gross motor subtest of the AEPS balanced out the lack of a corresponding test on

the Mullen. Similarly, the Visual Receptive and Receptive Language subtests on the Mullen

provided a relatively complete summary of Reese’s skills. The only area of Reese’s

development not addressed by either test was his articulation, which is an area of concern for

both his teachers and his parents. This is likely not on either test because articulation is usually

assessed by a speech and language pathologist.

Writing recommendations based on this assessment was very similar to writing the

recommendations we typically give at parent-teacher conferences. In fact, I have given these

recommendations to Reese’s parents before. I have been a teacher for several years now, so

17

ASSESSMENT REPORT

giving recommendations to parents is typical practice. We also discuss assessment results at out

conferences with parents, so this does not feel particularly difficult to me. Generally, as long as

recommendations are supported with assessment scores/results, parents are very receptive.

18