Eval Reviewing Guide
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Boston University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
737
Subject
Linguistics
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MasterClover12846
Reviewing Guide
Reviewer U95516257
1.
Identifying Information
Test name
: Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns (HAPP-3)
Publishers
: Pro-Ed
Authors
: Barbara Williams Hodson
2.
Testing Purpose
Population/Age Groups
: Mainly designed for children from 3 to 8 years old but can be administered to older students with intelligibility issues and some 2-year-olds (p. 5)
Purposes for which the test may be used:
Designed to (1) assess and analyze phonological deviations of children with highly unintelligible speech, (2) provide a treatment direction for children whose speech is highly unintelligible, and (3) yield posttreatment data that can be used for evidence-based practice documentation (p. 1)
Special consideration (if any): Designed for children whose speech is highly unintelligible (p.1).
3.
Test Content
Domains of speech, language or related skills tested:
The Comprehensive Phonological Evaluation, the Preschool Phonological Screening procedure, and the Multisyllabic Word Screening procedure – Phonology (pp. 2-3). There are also receptive language abilities tested through the ability to listen to and follow directions (p. 6)
Modalities tested:
Primarily speaking, however visual modalities tested in child’s use of toys and pictures (p. 6)
Other special characteristics (timed, open-ended responses, no verbal response needed etc.): Administration of the Comprehensive Phonological Evaluation does not exceed 20 minutes (p. 2)
4.
Standardization Sample/Norms
Types of scores reported (scaled scores, standard scores, index scores, percentiles, other): Yields raw scores, a standard score (ability score), and percentile ranks (p. 23)
Subgroups for which test scores are provided (age, gender, grade, disability, other. Most commonly this is age groups only):
There are 7 subgroups: Male, Female, White, Black, Other, Hispanic Origin, and Children with Phonological Impairment (p. 47)
Are the sample sizes <50 for these subgroups?
All subgroups except ‘Children with Phonological Impairment’ (n=21) were <50 (p. 47)
Are confidence intervals reported (standard error measurement): Not reported.
Representativeness of the sample (geographic, ethnic, racial, compared with national census data?): The demographic characteristics of the normative sample included: geographic area, gender, race, Hispanic origin, family income, educational attainment of parents, disability status, and age. These were compared to data collected from The Statistical Abstract of the United States, by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001 (p. 49).
Overall sample size(s): The overall sample size was n=866 (p.39).
Does the test give information about the representativeness of the sample? Briefly thanks
the professional who field tested the HAPP-3 and the data they provided that obtained a representative normative population sample (p. ix)
Does the test offer accommodations for scoring (e.g., acceptable dialect variations?) Changes were made to the forms to allow for linguistic/dialectal variations (p. vi) and states that examiners should be aware of all dialectal variations in their communities (p. 6). Accepted variations category typically characterized by regional or dialectal variations (p. 29). Was a bias analysis completed? Describe: Yes, statistical tests for item bias were performed and the potentially biased items represent less that 1% of the test items. It was concluded that the test is well within acceptable levels regarding gender, racial, and ethnic bias (p. 46).
Are individual with disabilities are included in the normative sample? Explain: Yes, disability status is reported as a percentage in the sample sections and demographic characteristics.
Special considerations for your testing purposes: N/A
5.
Reliability (which of the following types are included): Internal consistency evidence (split-half, Kuder-Richardson, coefficient alpha):
Two studies performed: testing the reliability of the 50 stimulus words chosen and testing the reliability of 11 patterns of phonological deviations from the analysis form used. Both yielded coefficient alpha of .95 and higher, indicating high reliability.
Test-retest reliability:
The coefficient of .99 demonstrates that the normative procedure has strong test-retest reliability (p. 43).
Inter-examiner reliability
: Strong evidence to support interscorer reliability with coefficients ranging from .89 to .99 (p. 44).
Other types of reliability measures (equivalent or parallel forms, long term stability): N/A
Special considerations for your testing purpose and/or client: N/A
6.
Validity (which of the following types are included)
Construct validity (Is the test based on a theoretical model? Was confirmatory factor analysis/structural equation modeling completed to test the model?):
Yes, performances of different groups of people on the test were studied yielding scores that were supportive of the construct-identification-validity of the HAPP-3.
Criterion-related validity (concurrent and predictive):
The HAPP-3 total occurrences of major phonological deviations (TOMPD) had a correlation of r=-.98 indicating strong criterion-related validity. The correlation scores are sufficiently high to provide support for the validity of the TOMPD metric.
Content validity (content coverage, content relevance, item analysis, was there a bias review):
Yes, procedures were used to identify biased items. The potentially biased items represent less than 1% of the test items on the HAPP-3 (well within acceptable levels of bias).
7.
Diagnostic Accuracy
Specificity:
N/A Sensitivity:
N/A
Are sensitivity and specificity >
80% N/A
Is a cut score provided/recommended? Cutoff scores serve as a guideline for writing a phonological goal statement (p. 4)
If sensitivity and specificity are not reported, what information is provided with regard to diagnostic accuracy? Several studies have shown significant correlations between percentages of intelligible words with averages of phonological process percentages of occurrence scores. Garrett and Moran (1992) specifically compared Phonological Deviancy Scores, Percentages of Consonants Correct and listener severity ratings and concluded that the PCC and PDS are accurate indicators of severity of phonological deviations (p. vi)
Is the test meant to be used for diagnosis, description of client characteristics or both? It
is designed to diagnose and describe certain phonological deviations of children with highly unintelligible speech (p. v).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
8.
Overall impressions for your individual client.
After reviewing the limited information about my client and comparing it to the HAPP-3 testing purposes and population, I believe my client would be a perfect candidate to perform this assessment on. Being a 3-year-old suburban GAE speaking child, the HAPP-
3 would allow her to be assessed for phonological deviations and provide a treatment direction for the clinician. The scores reported were normed on children similar to the client and will highly likely provide a valid and reliable diagnosis and description of the child’s phonological deviations.