special education Achievement Test

Assessment Type
Developed in the early 20th century, the Stanford-Binet is one of the most commonly used formal assessments measuring cognitive functioning. While it is a general assessment test instrument, the Stanford-Binet is commonly used as a means by which to screen children for exceptionalities in specific types of cognitive functioning. The specific types of cognitive functioning the Stanford-Binet test measures include memory, cognitive, processing, and general intelligence (“When Is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?,” n.d.). Because the Stanford-Binet test measures general cognitive functioning along certain core parameters, it may not be the most reliable means by which to evaluate the potential for specific learning, intellectual, or developmental disabilities. Nevertheless, the Stanford-Binet is among the most reputable and valid assessment tests of cognitive functioning used in education and psychology. In fact, the Stanford-Binet measures cognitive functioning in various categories including verbal and non-verbal communication, which also allows the instrument to be used as an initial means of formally assessing students (“When Is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?,” n.d.). The Stanford-Binet can be used as an aptitude test, too, and has also been efficacious in use for identifying learning disabilities or giftedness to help with individualized education planning (“When Is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?,” n.d.).
Grade Level
The grade level observed was the fourth grade, a class size of 45 children at a suburban elementary school.
Disability Category
The classroom was a blended general education classroom in which the special education instructor cooperatively taught with the general education teacher. Disability categories that were represented in the student body in the classroom included physical disabilities (including two students with motor dysfunction and one with hearing impairments), developmental disabilities as yet unspecified, and some students who through Response to Intervention had been flagged for possible intellectual or learning disabilities. Therefore, the Stanford-Binet test was administered to a diverse classroom to students who had already been diagnosed with specific disabilities and those who had not.
Service Delivery Model
As per the typical standards for administering the Stanford-Binet test, the special education teacher had acknowledged that it would take more than two hours. However, some students were given pared-down versions of the Stanford-Binet because they had already taken the test and had not exhibited any special needs. Several students had been set aside for the administration of sub-tests. Those sub-tests included the quantitative processing module, pattern analysis, and vocabulary portion of the Stanford-Binet cluster. The special education instructor selected these sub-tests based on the preliminary assessments—the informal assessments—completed by the general education teachers.
Evaluation of Location
The location for the administration of the Stanford-Binet test was an ordinary classroom in the suburban elementary school. There was nothing out of the ordinary in the location; there were no distractions either in terms of light or sound, and none of the students seemed to be uncomfortable. Windows provided some natural lighting, but the room used fluorescent lights. Posters and student drawings adorned the wall.
Teacher Reactions
The special education teacher and the general education teacher administered the Stanford-Binet test together, each taking turns talking to the students. Both teachers seemed to take their roles seriously, and because both had more than five years of experience administering the Stanford-Binet, seemed confident and assertive in iterating the instructions and helping the students who needed extra attention. The teachers alerted the students about what was expected of them, asked if there were any questions, and reacted to the actual test taking with complete neutrality.
When it came to collecting and analyzing the data, the teachers expressed some ambivalence about using the Stanford-Binet. Both mentioned the potential to rely too much on intelligence tests in making judgments about student aptitude, and both noted the need for using adaptations for students with special needs. Both teachers also said that they administered the Stanford-Binet with some trepidation when the students involved were English language learners. However, both teachers said that they had yet to come across a standardized assessment test that measures as broad a range of cognitive skills that was as reliable, verifiable, and comprehensive as this one.
Student Reactions
Student reactions varied. Most of the students were calm, with an open-eyed, serious visage. A few seemed anxious, and one had to excuse himself to use the bathroom twice during the administration of the Stanford-Binet. Another student raised his hand often enough that the special education teacher whispered to him for several minutes and attempted to calm him down. No students acted out or misbehaved. Student body language included head scratching and hari twirling, looking around the room, brow furrowing, and smug looks accompanied by dramatic setting down of pencils.
Data Collection Procedures
Because several of the Stanford-Binet sub-tests were used during this administration, there were different data collection procedures, accordingly. The experienced general education and special education teachers acted like it was second nature, administering each of the components smoothly and then collecting the completed forms from the students in the classroom. To maintain student confidentiality and anonymity, the teachers followed all the instructions and requirements. There were several folders that the teachers used to collect the test forms from the students, and these folders were marked appropriately. The teachers then send the completed Stanford-Binet tests for formal processing.
Recommended Adaptations
One of the core strengths of the Stanford-Binet test clusters is that they have been thoroughly vetted over time, proven to measure accurately the intelligence constructs they purport to assess in children from different population cohorts. Recent adaptations of the Stanford-Binet tests have in fact been efficacious in their use on populations with special needs (Mahdavi & Zkamkari, 2016). The law does require some formal assessments to be adapted for use among student populations. Laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) do require special education and general education teachers to make adaptations during the administration of the Stanford-Binet and any other assessment (Braden & Elliott, 2003). Moreover, educators are ethically responsible for administering tests like these judiciously and also using the results of these tests in ways that benefit the students they serve. The primary means by which teachers are encouraged to adapt the test-taking scenarios and circumstances include altering the method of test material presentation. Altering the method by which the test material is presented could mean using sign language for oral components, although in this situation there were no oral components to the Stanford-Binet (Braden & Elliott, 2003). Another means by which the special education instructors would be able to adapt the Stanford-Binet for use with special needs populations would be to help students with motor dysfunction to use alternative methods other than the standard pen/pencil and paper. Students with assistive technology can use their tools to make their responses, but other students may require teacher support.
According to Braden & Elliott (2003), some students may require additional timing as a standard modification or adaptation of the Stanford-Binet, although this could undermine the validity of the test results. In this situation, no timing adaptations were needed. Instead, the general education and special education teachers used other adaptations including the additional components of the Stanford-Binet for measuring different cognitive abilities. If there were students who struggled with the test setting, then the special education and general education teachers could have rearranged the classroom or relocated the test-taking environment to somewhere that minimized distractions or was generally more accessible to students with special needs.
Reflections
Ultimately, it is important to use multiple formal assessments for all students. Students with special needs, who have been formally assessed through instruments like the Stanford-Binet, may require different formal assessments to narrow down their range of abilities and understand what their needs are and how to best meet them through the educational system. The law—especially IDEA—mandates that students receive the appropriate instructional accommodations to ensure learning (Daniel, 2008). Moreover, the law requires that students receive an individualized education plan (IEP) according to their needs. The assessment methods like the Stanford-Binet are used as one of many methods of diagnosing and assessing students but should not be the only test used.
It is also important to use standardized assessments like the Stanford-Binet with Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI). RTI methods are also grounded in federal law and are applicable in situations like these in which general education teachers recognize the ways different students react to the test taking environment (Kame’enui, 2007). Because RTI is also an evidence-based practice, it can and should become more actively incorporated into special education pedagogy. As Zirkel (2007) also points out, general education teachers can use RTI in order to become more aware of the gamut of presenting symptoms that may indicate the presence of a cluster of disabilities including intellectual, developmental, and psychological issues—as well as physical issues that impact a student’s ability to learn or function in the classroom. The gap between aptitude and achievement should also be noted through the RTI process, and via the interpretation of the results of standardized tests like the Stanford-Binet. When a student has multiple types of disabilities, it may be difficult for the general education teacher to understand how to best approach the situation, which is why the special education teacher provides support and assistance.
The complexity of issues in special education warrants a great deal of compassion for special education teachers. As valid and reliable as standardized and formal assessments are, students need to be appreciated from a holistic standpoint, never reduced to the results of any one instrument. Ongoing assessments and observations allow all teachers, counselors, and caregivers to contribute information regarding observations of the child’s performance and changes in behavioral responses to interventions. As the child progresses through their educational and developmental cycle, the same assessment instrument can be administered to reveal progress or to imply necessary changes to the IEP.
References
Braden, J.P. & Elliott, S.N. (2003). Accommodations on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, Assessment Service Bulletin Number 2. Riverside: Houghton Mifflin.
Daniel, P.T.K. (2008). “Some benefit” or “Maximum Benefit.” Journal of Law and Education 37(3): 347-365.
Kame’enui, E.J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children 39(5): 6-7.
Mahdavi, A. & Zkamkari, K. (2016). The diagnostic validity of new version of Tehran-Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale in students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies 2356(5926).
“When is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?” (n.d.). Bright Hub Education. https://www.brighthubeducation.com/special-ed-learning-disorders/13503-when-is-the-stanford-binet-intelligence-scale-not-valid/
Zirkel, P.A. (2009). What does the law say? Teaching Exceptional Children 41(4): 68-71.