Evaluating Existing MeasuresIn discussion 1

Discussion 2: Evaluating Existing MeasuresIn  discussion 1, you considered how you might create an instrument for  measuring a phenomenon or client issue. For this week’s Discussion 2,  choose and evaluate an existing instrument to measure the concept you  identified in Discussion 1. Consider how you would compare your original  measurement to the existing measurement.

To Prepare: Review the following at the Walden Library on how to find existing instruments:http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/testsmeasures

Posta brief explanation of the existing  measurement instrument that you identified.

Then, compare your original  measurement approach to the existing instrument.

Next, explain how you  would revise or replace your original measurement plan.

Finally explain  the advantages and/or disadvantages of using existing instruments for  measurement. Please use the Learning Resources to support your answer.

Attribution Theory and Performance

Attribution Theory and Performance

Prior to beginning this assignment, be sure to read Chapter 4: Cognition, Learning, and the Environment, and read the article “Extending Attribution Theory: Considering Students’ Perceived Control of the Attribution Process”, the Instructor Guidance, and view the following website The Critical Thinking Community (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (http://www.criticalthinking.org/).

For this written assignment, you will demonstrate your understanding  of attribution theory. In essence, attribution theory states that  individuals tend to make sense of (logically prescribe) situations by  associating them to self, others, thoughts, feelings, or actions. This  theory suggests that learners should consider why they do what they do,  and what or who they are giving credit for both the victories and the  failures. Further, this theory suggests that if a person believes that  they are not good at something, they may attribute their unsuccessful  outcomes to external factors, rather than to themselves. In contrast, if  individuals have success, they more often may attribute their successes  to internal factors.

Using your required resources to support, discuss the following:

  • Describe a time where you feel you have failed and blamed someone  else: the teacher, the friend, a loved one. (Failure could be academic,  relational, and/or organizational – loss of a job.)
  • Do you believe that you blamed external things to support a more  stable version of your own self-image? (In other words, it could not be  your mistake). If not, what other reasons might external variables be  attributed for our own performance?
  • How do think stability and controllability affect performance attributions, based on our reading this week?
  • Why do you think that self-efficacy plays such a critical role in how we process our learning behaviors?
  • What strategies could be applied to utilize what we know about  self-perception and attributions to increase your learning performance  in the future? (Minimum of two strategies.)

Suggested template.

The Attribution Theory paper

  • Must  formatted according to APA style as  outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
  • Must include a separate title page with the following:
    • Title of paper
    • Student’s name
    • Course name and number
    • Instructor’s name
    • Date submitted
  • Must use headings and sub-headings. See example. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
  • Must use appropriate research methods (e.g. use of the Ashford  library) and skeptical inquiry (http://www.criticalthinking.org/) to  support the content inclusions.
  • Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis  statement. Visit the Ashford writing Center to clarify how to create a  strong thesis statement and what it helps you to accomplish. You may  also use the Thesis Generator (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
  • Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought. For  assistance with the critical thinking portion of the written assignment,  please see the information included on the Critical Thinking Community website (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
  • Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis. The  conclusion typically has two parts: the summary statement (one or two  sentences that restate the thesis in a fresh way to reinforce the  essay’s main idea) and the clincher (a final thought that creates a  lasting impression for the reader).
  • Must use at least one scholarly source from the Ashford University Library, in addition to the required e-book.
  • Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
  • Must include a separate reference page that is formatted according  to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. If you are  unsure how to create an APA style reference page, please visit the  Citation and Reference page on the Ashford Writing Center website.
  • Chapter 4

    Cognition, Learning, and the Environment

     

    After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

    · Compare and contrast the stages of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development.

    · Classify behaviors into Piaget’s stages of cognitive development.

    · Relate schema development to current understandings of cognition.

    · Identify and define types of comprehension-associated schemata.

    · Explain the relationship between social learning theory and social cognitive theory.

    · Summarize and explain the significance of the Bobo doll study.

    · Define attribution theory and describe its role in learning.

    · My Bookshelf

    · TOC/Annotation menu

    · Downloads

    · Print

    · Search

    · Profile

    · Help

     

    Introduction

    Have you ever

    · believed something as a child, only to change your belief as you grew older?

    · decided not to do something because others were not doing it either?

    · changed your behavior to match those around you?

    · changed your belief system (what you knew to be true) to match those held by your family and friends?

    · avoided something, such as a new food or carnival ride, because of the facial expressions you saw on others’ faces after they tried the same thing?

    A group of teenagers smoking cigarettes.

    MachineHeadz/iStock/Thinkstock

    A teenager smoking because others in his or her social circle are doing so is an example of a social interaction.

    In Chapter 3, you learned that cognition includes perception, attention, and memory development. This chapter introduces the complexities associated with social phenomena that affect cognition, often referred to as social cognition. Social cognition was initially introduced as a subset of social psychology that endeavored “to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others” (Allport, 1985, p. 3). Social cognition considers how individuals perceive and store information and form memories about other people and social events. It also focuses on how environmental interactions can affect behaviors, including learning. To be clear, despite its focus on the individual’s surroundings, social cognition is still the study of cognition; it is concerned with the role mental processes play in social interactions and vice versa.

    As noted in the text’s Introduction, researchers are not always clearly aligned to a single psychological theory or perspective during their careers. In fact, some researchers are aligned to more than one theory or perspective. For example, Albert Bandura (1965b) and Jerome Bruner (1957) started their careers studying learning from behavioral and purely cognitive perspectives, respectively, and then in later years moved toward social cognition. Several other researchers highlighted in this chapter are considered cognitivists, but their theories align with social cognition in that they rely on the environment and other external variables.

    This chapter will explore the theory of cognitive development (Jean Piaget), schema theory, social learning theory (Albert Bandura), and attribution theory. Your knowledge gained in the previous chapters will help you to evaluate and understand the new material included in this chapter. Every theory you encounter in this text is a building block, the raw materials that will help you construct a deeper understanding about learning. As you review the different aspects of the social and environmental effects on cognition, consider if and how these elements overlap with elements of other theories and frameworks you have learned about.

    · Knowledge Check

    · Notebook

     

    · My Bookshelf

    · TOC/Annotation menu

    · Downloads

    · Print

    · Search

    · Profile

    · Help

    4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Develop…

    Previous section

    Next section

    4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

    A photograph of Jean Piaget.

    Associated Press

    Jean Piaget introduced the theory of cognitive development, which focuses on a child’s development as dependent upon maturity, experience, culture, and aptitude. Therefore, the theory places more emphasis on external factors.

    Prior to behaviorism, much of the discussion about learning focused on intelligence quotient (IQ) testing. Research in behaviorism (e.g., the findings associated with Skinner and Watson) prompted academics and psychologists to consider how learning could occur (and be improved) through the use of reinforcers. This point of view conflicted with the underpinnings of IQ testing, which relied on numerical information to identify if students were on target level, under the target, or above the target level (i.e., gifted students). It was even common to use IQ tests to align a child with a specific mental age or to suggest that intelligence was part of a child’s personality (Hussain, Jamil, Saraji, & Maroof, 2012). As cognition became the greater focus of the academic community, however, new ideas about behavior and learning emerged.

    Jean Piaget, a leading psychologist during this period, had confidence in the idea suggested by behaviorism that children reacted to their environments. But after many years of observing children, including his own, Piaget also believed that children participated in learning in a more active way. Thus in 1936, Piaget’s theory of cognitive development was introduced to the academic community, placing increased attention on the child’s ability to successfully construct schema (to review schema construction, see section 2.3). The model suggests that although the child’s age is an important factor, age does not definitively determine when a child will move through each stage of development. Rather, the theory proposes that each stage is also dependent upon maturity, experience, culture, and the child’s aptitude (Papalia, Olds, & Freeman, 2005). This dependency on external variables places the theory of cognitive development within the purview of social cognition, although some researchers categorize Piaget’s work as purely cognitive.

    The excerpts in this section are from DeWolfe (2016). DeWolfe discusses the four stages of cognitive development, illustrates each stage, and assesses some of the implications that Piaget’s theory has in education. As you read, consider how each stage of development supports an individual’s ability to form and modify knowledge and to learn new information.

    Excerpts from “Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development”

    By T. E. DeWolfe

    Overview of Piaget’s Theory

    Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, generated the 20th century’s most influential and comprehensive theory of cognitive development. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development describes how the maturing child’s interactions with the environment result in predictable sequences of changes in certain crucial understandings of the world about him or her. Such changes occur in the child’s comprehension of time and space, quantitative relationships, cause and effect, and even right and wrong. Children are always treated as an actor in their own development. Advances result from the active desire to develop concepts or schemata that are sufficiently similar to the real world that this real world can be fitted or assimilated into these schemata. Schemata can be defined as any process of interpreting an object or event, including habitual responses, symbols, or mental manipulations. When a schema (“Cats smell nice”) is sufficiently discrepant from reality (“That cat stinks”), the schema itself must be accommodated or altered (“That catlike creature is a skunk”). For children everywhere, neurologically based advances in mental capacity introduce new perceptions that make the old ways of construing reality unsatisfactory and compel a fundamentally new construction of reality—a new stage of development. Piaget conceptualizes four such stages: sensorimotor (in infancy), preoperational (the preschool child), concrete operational (the school-age child), and formal operational (adolescence and adulthood). See Table 4.1 for a brief overview of each stage.

    Table 4.1: Stages of cognitive development

    Stage Age range Description Example
    sensorimotor Birth to age 2 · Develops knowledge of

    ◦ him/herself

    ◦ the world around him or her

    · Develops understanding through sensory perceptions and motor activities (interactions) with the environment

    · Assimilates and accommodates to form schemata

    · Learns that a shaking rattle makes noise

    · Feels sensation when playing with toes

    · Learns that crying gains help/food/holding

    preoperational Ages 2 to 6 or 7 · Continues to assimilate and accommodate information through sensory perceptions and motor activities (interactions) with the environment

    · Is unable to think abstractly and requires concrete physical experiences

    · Develops language development and uses egocentric talk

    · Develops mental representations of objects

    · Imitates

    · Begins to use language

    · Uses rocks on the ground as play money

    · Believes everyone has a boat, because he or she has a boat

    · Believes there is “more” candy when it is broken up into pieces

    concrete operations Ages 6 or 7 to early adolescence · Is no longer egocentric

    · Finds abstract thought difficult

    · Develops logical thought

    · Applies inductive thought

    · Understands reversibility, conservation, and seriation

    · Does not believe that everyone has the same likes, dislikes, beliefs, etc.

    · Recognizes that Fido → dog → animal → mammal = all the same object (reversibility)

    · Recognizes that when candy is broken into pieces, it is still equivalent to the one piece (conservation)

    · Recognizes that blocks can be stacked from smallest to largest (seriation)

    formal operations Early adolescence through adulthood · Can speculate

    · Understands unique concepts: joy, love, peace

    · Presents abstract ideas and thoughts

    · Can theorize

    · Develops deductive reasoning and systematic planning skills

    · Solves word problems

    · Plans for the future

    · Counts without using objects

    · Forms hypotheses and tests them

    · Effectively develops increasingly accurate schemata

    © Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

    Sensorimotor Stage

    A baby playing with his toes.

    M-image/iStock/Thinkstock

    In the sensorimotor stage of infant development, the infant relates sounds or movements to a specific object or person.

    In the sensorimotor stage, the infant orients himself or herself to objects in the world by consistent physical (motor) movements in response to those sensory stimuli that represent the same object (for example, the sight of a face, the sound of footsteps, or a voice all represent “mother”). The relationship between motor responses and reappearing objects becomes progressively more complex and varied in the normal course of development. First, reflexes such as sucking become more efficient; then sequences of learned actions that bring pleasure are repeated (circular reactions). These learned reactions are directed first toward the infant’s own body (thumb sucking), then toward objects in the environment (the infant’s stuffed toy).

    Babies seem to lack an awareness that objects continue to exist when they are outside the range of their senses. When the familiar toy of an infant is hidden, the infant does not search for it; it is as if it has disappeared from reality. As the sensorimotor infant matures, the infant becomes convinced of the continuing existence of objects that disappear in less obvious ways for longer intervals of time. By 18 months of age, most toddlers have achieved such a conviction of continuing existence, or object permanence.

    Preoperational Stage

    In the preoperational stage, the preschool child begins to represent these permanent objects by internal processes or mental representations. Now the development of mental representations of useful objects proceeds at an astounding pace. In symbolic play, blocks may represent cars and trains. Capable of deferred imitation, the child may pretend to be a cowboy according to his memory image of a motion-picture cowboy. The most important of all representations are the hundreds of new words the child learns to speak.

    As one might infer from the word “preoperational,” this period, lasting from about age 2 through ages 6 or 7, is transitional. Preschool children still lack the attention, memory capacity, and mental flexibility to employ their increasing supply of symbolic representations in logical reasoning (operations). It is as if the child remains so focused on the individual frames of a motion picture that the child fails to comprehend the underlying plot. Piaget calls this narrow focusing on a single object or salient dimension centration. The child may say, for example, that a quart of milk the child has just seen transferred into two pint containers is now “less milk” because the child focuses on the smaller size of the new containers. Fido is seen as a dog, not as an animal or a mammal. Children uncritically assume that other people, regardless of their situation, share their own tastes and perspectives. A 2-year-old closes his eyes and says, “Now you don’t see me, Daddy.” Piaget calls this egocentrism.

    Concrete Operations Stage

    The concrete operations stage begins at age 6 or 7, when the school-age child becomes capable of keeping in mind and logically manipulating several concrete objects at the same time. The child is no longer the prisoner of the momentary appearance of things. In no case is the change more evident than in the sort of problem in which a number of objects (such as 12 black checkers) are spread out into four groups of three. While the 4-year-old, preoperational child would be likely to say that now there are more checkers because they take up a larger area, to the 8-year-old it is obvious that this transformation could easily be reversed by regrouping the checkers. Piaget describes the capacity to visualize the reversibility of such transformations as “conservation.” This understanding is fundamental to the comprehension of simple arithmetical manipulations. It is also fundamental to a second operational skill: categorization. To the concrete-operational child, it seems obvious that while Rover the dog can for other purposes be classified as a household pet, an animal, or a living organism, he will still be a “dog” and still be “Rover.” A related skill is seriation: keeping in mind that an entire series of objects can be arranged along a single dimension, such as size (from smallest to largest). The child now is also capable of role-taking, of understanding the different perspective of a parent or teacher. No longer egocentric (the assumption that everyone shares one’s own perspective and the cognitive inability to understand the different perspective of another), the child becomes able to see himself as others see him and to temper the harshness of absolute rules with a comprehension of the viewpoints of others.

    Formal Operations Stage

    The formal operations stage begins in early adolescence. In childhood, logical operations are concrete ones, limited to objects that can be visualized, touched, or directly experienced. The advance of the early adolescent into formal operational thinking involves the capacity to deal with possibilities that are purely speculative. This permits coping with new classes of problems: those involving relationships that are purely abstract or hypothetical, or that involve the higher-level analysis of a problem by the systematic consideration of every logical (sometimes fanciful) possibility. The logical adequacy of an argument can be examined apart from the truth or falsity of its conclusions.

    Concepts such as “forces,” “infinity,” or “justice,” nowhere directly experienced, can now be comprehended. Formal operational thought permits the midadolescent or adult to hold abstract ideals and to initiate scientific investigations.

    Illustrating Stage Development

    Piaget was particularly clever in the invention of problems that illustrate the underlying premises of the child’s thought. The crucial capability that signals the end of the sensorimotor period is object permanence, the child’s conviction of the continuing existence of objects that are outside the range of one’s senses. Piaget established the gradual emergence of object permanence by hiding from the child familiar toys for progressively longer periods of time, with the act of hiding progressively less obvious to the child. Full object permanence is not considered achieved until the child will search for a familiar missing object even when the child could not have observed its being hidden.

    A young child playing peekaboo with a toddler.

    Hero Images Inc./Hero Images/SuperStock

    One reason babies love the peekaboo game is because they have not developed object permanence yet. Until they go through this stage, they believe objects to disappear when they leave their sight.

    The fundamental test of concrete operational thought is conservation. In a typical conservation task, the child is shown two identical balls of putty. The child generally affirms their obvious equivalence. Then one of the balls of putty is reworked into an elongated, wormlike shape while the child watches. The child is again asked about their relative size. Younger children are likely to say that the wormlike shape is smaller, but the child who has attained conservation of mass will state that the size must still be the same. Inquiries concerning whether the weights of the differently shaped material (conservation of weight) are the same and whether they would displace the same amount of water (conservation of volume) are more difficult questions, generally not answerable until the child is older.

    Standardized Tests to Measure Piaget’s Concepts

    Since Piaget’s original demonstrations, further progress has necessitated the standardization of these problems with materials, questions, procedures, and scoring so clearly specified that examiners can replicate one another’s results. Such standardization permits the explanation of the general applicability of Piaget’s concepts. Standardized tests have been developed for measuring object permanence, egocentricity, and role-taking skills. The Concept Assessment Kit: Conservation, for example, provides six standard conservation tasks for which comparison data (norms) are available for children in several widely diverse cultures. The relative conceptual attainments of an individual child (or culture) can be measured. It is encouraging that those who attain such basic skills as conservation early have been shown to be advanced in many other educational and cognitive achievements.

    Implications for Education

Test And Measurements 2

Posted for Dr Candice_2547

Instructions

 

For this task, complete the   readings for this assignment, and then write a paper in which you complete   the following:

  1. Write an introduction that        examines the construct, its conceptual definition/s, and related        concepts.
  2. Review the literature and the        existing tools that measure the construct.
  3. Provide justification for        your original scale.
  4. Discuss how you intend to        construct the items, cognizant of the basic principles of item pool        construction, the necessity of SMEs, the unidimensionality or        multidimensionality of the construct, etc.
  5. Write at least 20 sample        items that represent the construct you are planning to measure. You may        construct negatively-worded items, but indicate these in a chart or        table. If the construct you choose has two or more dimensions under it,        write sample items indicating which items fall under which dimension.        (See for example, the Life Position Scale that contained four dimensions        I’m OK etc. at first, but after factor analysis the dimensions reduced        to two—I and You.) These are attached to the assignment
  6. Argue for a specific method        of running an item analysis procedure.
  7. Argue for at least two        specific methods of establishing your scale’s validity (Choose at least        one method for construct validity, and another method for        criterion-related validity. In criterion validation, it is not enough to        simply write that you are planning to employ the method. Be sure to        specify the variable(s) you will correlate your scale with.

Length: 10-15 pages

Your assignment should demonstrate   thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts by providing new thoughts   and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect   scholarly writing and current APA standards.

Due: October 17, 2018 by 4pm EST

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
I think people are out to get me          
I need to kill to feel calm          
I would kill again if I was let out          
I agree with my current treatment plan          
Discussing the details of my case makes me happy          
I feel judged by my therapist          
I hear voices          
I feel sorry for what I did          
I had control of my actions          
Killing is wrong          
I feel remorse for my actions          
Being incarcerated has helped me see the error in my ways          
I think my medication is helping me          
I would repeat the same actions if given another chance          
I hear voices          
I think I am receiving enough therapy for my mental illness(es)          
I still pose a threat to society          
I am happier than I used to be          
I understand my emotions          
Killing feels good

Rewrite Paper In Own Words No Plag- Report To Court

1

Running Head: REPORT TO THE COURT

 

 

2

REPORT TO THE COURT

 

Report to the Court

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment 4: Report to the Court: The Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder

Capella University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

This paper serves the purpose of evaluating Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder in accordance to the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education. The purpose of the assessment will be discussed, as well as, information pertaining to the test content, the domains tested and the information covered. Further discussion will occur on the is appropriateness of the assessment with regards to the test takers. This paper will discuss the materials provided in the assessment kit and how this pertains to current technology. Information relevant to the reliability and validity of the assessment will be presented. Finally, a summary discussing the overall usefulness, including both the strengths and weaknesses, of this assessment will be presented.

Keywords: assessment, evaluation, reliability, validity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose

According to the American Psychological Association, a professional within the psychological field must utilize an assessment method that has an established validity and reliability with the intended population being assessed (APA, 2016). The Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder (CASD) was developed as a quick and valid means for screening and diagnosing children suspected of having autism spectrum disorder, regardless of age, functioning level or IQ level (Stoelting Co., 2018). The CASD assessment aims to provide quick and accurate diagnostic distinctions of children with commonly mistaken diagnoses. The CASD is a comprehensive list of 30 symptoms, each associated with the occurrence of an ASD diagnosis (Mayes, 2012). The CASD is completed by utilization of a semi-structured interview with a child’s parent, through either information obtained from a teacher or child care provider and through direct observation of the child. The strengths of this assessment as pertaining to Element 1, lies in the ability of the assessment to be conducted through multiple means. This ensures the assessment can be completed in less time, ensuring earlier and quicker diagnosis.

Appropriateness

According to the Joint Committee on Testing Practices (2004), a key consideration when selecting the correct assessment to utilize is to ensure the content within the assessment is appropriate for the intended purpose of engaging in the assessment process. As the intention of completing diagnostic assessment is to determine the appropriateness and likelihood of a diagnosis of ASD, information obtained through the assessment must provide the assessor with the means to make this determination. The CASD assessment is comprised of items referring to all core symptoms associated with ASD. Each symptom is grouped into six domains including: problems with social interaction, perseverative behavior, somatosensory disturbance, atypical communication and development, mood and problems with attention and safety (Mayes, 2012). A score is obtained through the completion of either a 20-minute semi-structured interview with parents, a teacher or child care provider familiar with the child or through direct observations of the child (Mayes, 2012). The CASD is the only diagnostic instrument designed to evaluate a single spectrum versus the assessing of different subtypes of pervasive developmental disorder and is able to accurately differentiate children with an autism diagnosis, versus children with other commonly misdiagnosed disorders, including Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Mayes et. al., 2009). Furthermore, as the CASD was developed through the decision-theory model (DTM), there is an emphasis on the determination of the appropriateness of a diagnosis versus the obtainment of a quantitative estimate (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965). The strengths of the CASD assessment within the domain of appropriateness is astronomical. The CASD is able to accurately determine the presence of an ASD diagnosis versus the occurrence of other commonly misdiagnosed disorders. This allows for the clients to receive the evidence-based interventions needed in an efficient manner.

Materials

According to the American Psychological Association, a psychological professional must utilize assessment methods that accommodate an individual’s language, situation, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences (APA, 2016). The CASD assessment is completed through the conduction of a semi-structured interview of either parents or a caregiver familiar with the child. This delivery method, allows for the administrator to individualize the language being used to allow for the responder to better comprehend the questions being asked. Currently, there is limited information available with regards to which languages the CASD has been successfully administered in. However, it is important to note that during the standardization process of the assessment, sample used was reflective of the ethnic and racial demographics of the USA (Mayes, et. al., 2014). Furthermore, the manual provided with the assessment kit, includes examples of both interviews, diagnostic reports and treatment plans for the assessor to utilize (Stoelting Co., 2018). A strength of this assessment as it pertains to materials, is the relative ease the assessment can be completed. As the assessment is comprised of a checklist, the assessor is able to complete the interview in a variety of environments. This allows for any potential effects a novel or clinical environment can have on the test subject to be mitigated altogether.

Training to Administer Assessment

While the CASD assessment can be completed by a parent independently, if being used as a diagnostic assessment, the CASD must be completed by a trained individual with a qualification level of C. Furthermore, the interviews and observations need to be conducted by a qualified psychologist or physician specialist who is familiar with ASD. This need for specialist and intensive training is a strength of this assessment. The CASD has been found to have a 100% diagnostic agreement between the score obtained by completion of the CASD and a psychiatrist using the DSM-IV (Mayes et al., 2013). In addition, the CASD has been found to be accurate when diagnosing individuals’ ranging from low functioning to higher functioning (Mayes et al., 2009).

Technical Quality

A key component to selecting the correct assessment is to ensure there is evidence of the technical quality, including the reliability and validity, of the assessment (Joint Committee on Testing Practices, 2004). A study completed by Mayes et. al. (2009), determined the criterion validity of the assessment in terms of differentiating children with a previously determined autism diagnosis, children with a diagnosis of Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and neuro-typical children. It was determined that when completed, the CASD was able to accurately differentiate children with ASD and ADHD diagnosis, 99.5%. Furthermore, when compared to neuro-typical children, the CASD assessment was able to differentiate children with an ASD diagnosis 100% of the time (Mayes et.al, 2009). An additional study, by Mayes, Black & Tierney (2013), determined the validity of the CASD assessment in diagnosing the occurrence of ASD across severity level, either low or high functioning. When compared to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders- V (DSM-V), it was determined that the CASD was able to accurately determine severity level 93% of the time (Mayes, Black, & Tierney, 2013).

Another aspect of technical quality of an assessment is the reliability. At the present time, limited information is available with regards to the CASD. One study, by Mayes et. al., (2009), determined that when the checklist was completed independently by a clinician or parent, there was a 90% diagnostic agreement. This suggests that the CASD has a high interrater reliability rate (Mayes et.al., 2009). While there is information pertaining to the validity of the CASD as a diagnostic tool, the minimal studies demonstrating the reliability of the assessment is a weakness. In order to ensure clinicians are utilizing assessments deemed best practice, it is of paramount importance that more studies be completed that seek to determine the reliability of the CASD.

Test Items, Format, Procedures and Modifications

The CASD assessment is a short 15 to 20-minute semi-structured interview, comprised of items referring to all core symptoms of ASD. Each symptom is grouped into six domains including: problems with social interaction, preservative behavior, somatosensory disturbance, atypical communication and development, mood and problems with attention and safety (Mayes, 2012). A score is determined following information obtained by parents, a teacher or childcare worker familiar with the child or through direct observation of the child. The score obtained aligns with a qualitative description, with a score of 15 to 30 suggesting the need for a diagnosis of autism, a score of 11 to 14 suggesting a potential diagnosis, a score of 8 to 10 suggesting an at-risk level, and a score of 7 or below suggesting the child is in neuro-typical range (Powell & Kuznetsova, 2014). Additionally, as the assessment is derived utilizing the DTM, the assessment can be completed through a flexible and changing approach. This allows the assessor to tailor the language utilized to accommodate the varying cognitive level of the responders. This flexibility is a strength of this assessment. Another strength of the CASD assessment within this domain is the scores are able to be obtained through interviews with not only parents, but staff and other caregivers familiar with the child (Mayes, 2012). This allows for the assessment to be completed in a brief time, a benefit in a busy clinical setting. However, this is also a potential weakness. As the assessment stresses the occurrence of any symptom, throughout the child’s life just not at present, is a positive indicator of the ASD diagnosis, this assessment may prove ineffective with children within the care system.

Group Differences

The CASD assessment was standardized against of sample of 1417 children, ages 1 to 18. Of this sample, 925 were categorized as neuro-typical, 437 children categorized as a non-ASD diagnosis and 55 children with an ASD diagnosis. According the Mayes, et. al, (2014) the sample used in standardization was representative of both the ethnic and racial demographics of the USA. Furthermore, the CASD was able to accurately determine the category group of the participants with a 99.5% accuracy rate (Mayes, 2012). This high rate of accuracy amongst a sample of racially and ethnically diverse demographics is a strength of the assessment, as it shows cultural differences do not have an effect on the results obtains.

Executive Summary

When determining the assessment to utilize within the clinical setting, it is important to analyze the assessment tool for the strengths and weaknesses. When analyzed against the guidelines put forth by the American Psychological Association and the Joint Committee on testing Practices, the CASD assessment is an exceptional test. The CASD provides a high diagnostic accuracy of 99.5%, when compared to the criterion presented within the DSM (Mayes, 2012). Furthermore, the CASD does not only rely on the current presence of symptoms when the individual is being assessed. This is of particular importance, as some of the symptoms associated with ASD occur at lower frequency as the child ages, making them difficult to directly observe (Mayes et. al, 2009). Another positive aspect of the CASD is the accuracy when determining the ASD diagnosis in individuals of varying severity levels (Mayes et. al, 2009). This allows for the assessment to have a high sensitivity rate.

Another strength of the CASD assessment, lies in the high validity rate when compared to other similar diagnostic tools. The CASD has undergone extensive studies to determine the accuracy of diagnosis when a co-occurring condition is present. These studies have found that the CASD is still able to accurately determine the ASD diagnosis in children demonstrating apraxia of speech and children with attachment-based disorders (Tierney et. al., 2015). This proves especially advantageous as children receiving diagnosis in a time-effective manner will have access to evidence-based interventions earlier in their development. Current studies have shown that access to early intervention positively alters a child’s long-term outcomes, achieves significant savings of support across the lifetime of the child, and will reduce the occurrence of secondary health and social complications (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 2013).

Another strength of the assessment lies in the means of assessment delivery. The CASD requires highly trained and specialized professionals to conduct the assessment for diagnostic purposes. This allows for the elimination of potential erroneous diagnoses. Furthermore, the CASD is able to be completed through a semi-structured interview format or through direct observation of the child. This flexibility allows for the assessment to be completed in a variety of environmental contexts. Furthermore, the checklist format of the assessment allows for the administrator to modify the language utilized within the interview to better suit the requirements and functioning levels of the respondents. However, it is important to note that this unstructured nature of the assessment could prove difficult for an inexperienced clinician, resulting in an interview that is disjointed and nonlinear (Atlas, 2017). Scoring following the administration of the assessment provides the assessor with a numerical score ranging from 1-30. Each score range is associated with a qualitative description indicating the likelihood of an ASD diagnosis. From this score, the assessor is able to provide the test taker with clear results and a potential treatment plan.

Finally, the CASD was standardized using a large and diverse sample size. This sample included children with confirmed ASD diagnoses, children with other commonly misidentified diagnoses and children with typical range. Children within the three diagnostic groups represented the current racial and ethnic demographics of the USA. Of these children, 99.5% were correctly placed within their diagnostic groups following the CASD. This high accuracy rate shows that the CASD is not adversely affected by any potential cultural differences of the test respondents.

Conclusion

The process of selecting an appropriate assessment requires a clinician to actively analyze and critique several areas. The assessor must ensure the assessment serves the intended purpose and is applicable to the population it is being utilized with. The assessment must allow for ease of administration and provide modifications for individuals who may not be able to access the assessment in its current form. Furthermore, a clinician must ensure the assessment demonstrates validity and reliability to ensure best practice. With this aforementioned information in mind, it is my recommendation that that CASD assessment continue to be utilized. The CASD demonstrates flexibility and ease of use which is beneficial in an ever-changing health field. However, it is important to note that research aimed at determining the reliability of the assessment and efficacy with multicultural communities be conducted to ensure the CASD remains the standard of ASD diagnosis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References