Willmore Test Review - Process Assessment of the Learner II
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
621
Subject
Mathematics
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by SuperHumanRavenPerson995
EDUC 621
T
EST
R
EVIEW
T
EMPLATE
Your name: Brandon Willmore
Name of instrument: Process Assessment of the Learner – Second Edition: Diagnostic Assessment for Math
Author(s) of instrument: Virginia Wise Berninger
Date of current publication: 2007
Publisher: Pearson
Base all answers on information provided in MMY
(available through Liberty University Online Library), course textbook, and, if necessary, recent scholarly sources.
1.
List all “
global
” areas and their corresponding subtests
that comprise each global area (add more or less space as needed):
A.
List all Global Areas (aka Domains, Clusters)
: The PAL-II Math battery consists of 14 subtests covering math-related processes shown to be the best predictors of math achievement. There is a total of 48 scores that predict the range of achievement in various subtests.
List all Subtests: Numeral Writing, Oral Counting, Fact Retrieval: Look and Write, Fact Retrieval: Listen and Say, Computation Operations, Place Value, Part-Whole Relationships, Finding the Bug, Multistep Problem Solving, Quantitative Working Memory, Spatial Working Memory, RAN: Digits,
RAN: Double Digits, RAN: Digits and Double Digits Total Scores, RAS: Words and Digits, Fingertip Writing
2.
State the age range this test can be administered to: kindergarten through sixth grade (ages 5 through 13 years)
3.
State the purpose of the test: The user's guide describes several purposes: screening to identify students who may be at risk for low achievement, progress monitoring for struggling students, and diagnosis regarding processing problems.
4.
Describe the qualifications required for an examiner to administer this test: It should be administered by a skilled professional, such as a school psychologist or math teacher who has been
trained appropriately. This professional will determine which subtests are to be administered based
on their knowledge of the assessment and the concerns of the students. While most subtests can be scored after, the administrator will need to be trained & prepared for the given subtests that are designed to be scored during the assessment.
5.
List
the types
of scores (e.g., standard scores, percentile rank, scaled scores, age equivalent, grade equivalent, etc.)
this test uses to report results. According to the manual, the test gives a raw score and a derived score in each of the respective subtest areas. The administration and scoring manual provides several tables of norms by grade level, including scale score equivalents of raw scores for each subtest
6.
List the instrument’s technical data (including actual numbers) regarding validity, reliability, and Page 1 of 4
EDUC 621
standardization / normative process. Validity: The user guide provides evidence of validity for the subtests through intercorrelations and
are higher within domains rather than across domains. There are several instances of near-zero correlations that appear to remain consistent. In the areas of low correlations, it does not mean it is a lack of validity, but are with the NEPSY-II, which measures neuropsychological functioning.
Reliability: There is some difficulty with estimating the score reliabilities for the subtests in which floor or ceiling effects are present. The application of specific approaches for estimating reliability varies from subtest to subtest, as some are more appropriate. There is extensive information on the reliability of each subtest included in the assessments.
Standardization/Normative Process: The standardization was conducted using 225 examiners from across the U.S. who were selected based on experience and access to students in the relevant grade levels. The standardization sample included 700 students, with 100 drawn from each relevant grade
level. A stratified random sampling procedure was used, with stratification variables including race/ethnicity, sex, age, region, and parent/guardian education level.
7.
State the approximate time needed to administer the test: The test takes between 60 to 120 minutes to complete all subtests.
8.
Did this test’s norming population include individuals with special needs and/or limited English proficiency? According to the review, the standardization sample excluded students with certain special needs, but did not specify which special needs. No information about whether LEP students were included.
9.
Describe the strengths of the instrument. If not explicitly stated in the MMY, support your answer based
on the information given. According to the reviewer, the test is “a well-researched measure that can provide educators with information that cannot be easily obtained through other sources. The administration and scoring procedures used in the PAL-II M are designed to uncover the processes in which students engage as they attempt each item rather than focusing exclusively on the end result.” Examples of these differences can be found in the fact that students have to use pencils without erasers so that if they make a mistake that they want to correct, they must cross it out rather than erasing it, thereby providing a written record of errors and corrections that can be scored. Overall, this assessment provides extensive diagnostic information that is provided through the subtests of basic math-related processes. It provides details on the student’s abilities and what hinders their progress, and this provides details that will allow teachers to apply targeted interventions to address these individual difficulties. It is also noted by the reviewer that “the user's guide provides clear, detailed information on all aspects of administration and interpretation and offers guidance for working with teachers and others to address students' needs. It also provides various record-keeping forms that can be useful for documenting performance and communicating with teachers, parents, and others who are involved in a child's educational planning, as well as interview guides, questionnaires, and structured observation forms that can be used to collect supplemental information about student performance.”
Page 2 of 4
EDUC 621
10.
State any weaknesses of the instrument. If not expressly stated in the MMY, support your answer based
on the information given.
Although extensive information about score reliability and validity is presented, some additional analyses would be helpful. For example, the standardization sample excluded students with certain special needs but schools may benefit from evidence regarding the appropriateness of the test for these students. It also would be useful to have more information on how score reliability and validity might be affected by the level of training and experience of the administrator. Moreover, given the length of the test and the often limited amount of time available for testing, users would benefit from analyses to explore whether administering a portion of the assessment would produce useful information about students' skills and areas of need. Additional guidance on how the PAL-II
M scores should be combined with other information to design appropriate interventions would be useful. Finally, evidence of the extent to which appropriate use of PAL-II M leads to better decision making would be extremely useful for evaluating the validity of test scores and utility of the measure.
11. References: Hamilton, L., & Ryan, K. E. (2010). Process Assessment of the Learner–Second Edition: Diagnostic Assessment for Math. The Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook.
Personal Response: After reviewing this test and considering all that you have learned in this review, would you recommend that this test be used to assess the students for whom it is designed? State why
this test would or would not be useful in assessing this population. If this test could be used for the student population you are teaching or hope to teach, please include that information and why you would or would not use this test. In light of the comprehensive strengths highlighted in the review of the Process Assessment of the Learner – Second Edition: Diagnostic Assessment for Math (PAL-II M), I wholeheartedly recommend the use of this test to assess the students for whom it is designed. Despite math not being my primary content area, the robust features of PAL-II M make it an invaluable tool that transcends the confines of traditional assessments. The reviewer's emphasis on PAL-II M as a well-researched measure that delves into students' thought processes during problem-solving is particularly compelling. The insistence on using pencils without erasers not only underscores the authenticity of the assessment but also showcases a commitment to capturing the intricacies of students' engagement with the material. The deliberate choice to maintain a written record of errors and corrections not only aligns with best practices in assessment but also enhances the diagnostic value of the test. Moreover, the diagnostic richness of PAL-II M, as evident in its subtests targeting basic math-related processes, is a pivotal strength. The detailed insights into students' abilities and obstacles provide a roadmap for educators to tailor interventions precisely. This level of granularity is crucial in facilitating
targeted support, ensuring that instructional strategies align with individual student needs. The user's guide accompanying PAL-II M further cements its utility. The provision of clear, detailed information on administration and interpretation, along with guidance on collaboration with teachers Page 3 of 4
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
EDUC 621
and stakeholders, underscores the test's commitment to facilitating a comprehensive understanding of students' needs. The inclusion of various record-keeping forms, interview guides, questionnaires, and observation forms enhances the overall utility of PAL-II M as a tool for documenting performance and fostering effective communication among educators, parents, and other stakeholders. Although math may not be my primary teaching content area, the versatility and depth of diagnostic information offered by PAL-II M make it a valuable asset. In instances where I would need to recommend or refer a student for assessment, PAL-II M's capacity to uncover cognitive processes and provide targeted information for intervention would be a decisive factor in its favor. In conclusion, the Process Assessment of the Learner – Second Edition: Diagnostic Assessment for Math stands out as an
exemplary tool for assessing and supporting students, making it highly recommendable for educators across diverse teaching content areas.
Page 4 of 4