To echo the testimonials of others,
I, too, have had some apprehensive feelings about this class. While I am familiar with a variety of
types and tools of assessments because of my job as a special education teacher,
the world of administering test batteries is somewhat foreign to me. I understand how to apply results to
students’ IEPs and interventions, but to administer and interpret results
myself is somewhat scary. However,
reading the first couple chapters has eased my mind a bit. I found the first two chapters to be
mostly a review for me, with some new information (mostly vocabulary). Since I use and refer to assessments
regularly, I certainly had some reactions to some of the information.
First,
I find it interesting that Drummond & Jones (2010) assert that the most
significant criticism of rating scales is with the informant. I can certainly see why this would be
an issue, especially when it relates to bias. One’s most recent interactions
with a student can definitely affect an informant’s scores, and can produce
error, especially “severity” error. Still, from personal experience, I find that the wording of
the scales themselves could also be a major criticism, and I was surprised that
this was not discussed in the chapter.
The wording tends to be very general and often vague. Sometimes it borders absurdity. For example, about two months ago I
completed a behavior rating scale for one of my students. The scale was very lengthy (at least 5
pages long) and quite redundant. Some
of the “behaviors” that I rated included, “is perfect in every way,” and “acts
like an angel.” If that does not
warrant criticism, I don’t know what does.
Anecdotal
records are a form of assessment that I use on a daily basis. The description of guidelines for
anecdotal records tend to be easier said than done. Yes, it is most valid when a professional write anecdotals
directly after the behavior of concern.
However, in my world, the reality is that, unless I have a free moment
and place to immediately document my observations of a student (or several,
depending), I need to tuck them away in the back of my mind until a later
time. In addition, Drummond &
Jones (2010) stated that anecdotal records should include both positive and
negative statements. My question
is, how can this be if they are supposed to be objective? I thought that objectivity implies that
something is neither positive nor negative.
I
am glad to have a chapter to reference regarding ethical guidelines. Reading through these guidelines caused
me to reflect on my own personal testing experiences and those that I have
experienced as a teacher. The ACA
code of ethics includes the client’s right to know the results,
interpretations, and basis for conclusions & recommendations, yet out of
the countless MDE meetings I have attended, the student has never been present
to hear the results of his/her evaluation report. In fact, many students that I teach do not even know what
their disabilities are, and in several cases parents have requested that they
not be told. This causes me to
wonder: have our school psychologists been breaking ethical guidelines, or is
there more to it than has been discussed in chapter 17? Another ACA ethical guideline
relates to refraining from making or reporting a diagnosis if it is believed
the diagnosis would cause harm to the client or others. I am wondering if this includes school
psychologists changing their initial identification of a student’s disability to
another that better fits what the child’s parents desire. This does not occur often in my
district, but I have been told of at least one case per year when a parent does
not agree with a disability label (i.e. Emotional Disturbance) so the school
psychologist changes the identification to “Other Health Impairment,” which is
like a “catch-all” identification.
Again, I’m left wondering if this fits the ethical guidelines, or if a
code of ethics has been breached.
My
personal reaction to a code of ethics is one I shared in class last week. ACA code of ethics says that, prior to
assessments, counselors should explain the nature and purposes of assessment to
the client. As I had shared, when
I was about 9 years old I was evaluated for gifted. I remember being quite confused as to what was going
on. To my memory, no one had
explained why I was in a room with a strange man being asked to answer his
questions. No one had explained
ahead of time that, even if I did not know an answer, I should still make my best
guess. I remember answering, “I
don’t know” to many questions, and therefore did not quite score high enough to
be considered gifted. The reason I
was being tested was explained after the fact, and after encouragement from my
parents and a second testing opportunity, I was eligible for the gifted
program. Had this code of ethics
been followed the first time, I may not have had to go through a second testing
session.
Overall,
I am feeling more relaxed about this class. I am looking forward to delving deeper into the world of
assessment, and reflecting upon how I can improve upon my current role as a
special educator.
Drummond,
R.J. & Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and
helping professionals ( 7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment