Content uploaded by Mari Janikian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mari Janikian on Mar 09, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Development of a screening tool for children prior to school
entrance
Loretta Thomaidis1, Stelios Mantoudis1, Miltiades Kyprianou1, Mari Janikian1, Andreas
Konstantopoulos2
1Developmental Assessment Unit, Second Department of Pediatrics, National Kapodistrian University of Athens and
2Hellenic Pediatric Society, Athens, Greece
E-mail: miltosk@gmail.com; dr_thomaidis@yahoo.gr
SUMMARY: Thomaidis L, Mantoudis S, Kyprianou M, Janikian M,
Konstantopoulos A. Development of a screening tool for children prior to
school entrance. Turk J Pediatr 2014; 56: 374-384.
The present study describes the development, application and validation of the
Α' TEST, a screening tool administered individually to kindergarten children
to determine their school preparedness. The A΄ TEST evaluates six cognitive
domains (abstract thinking, critical reasoning, language skills, visual perception,
visual motor skills and organizational skills). It was administered to 2002
preschool children, and validated through comparison with well-established
classification systems. Also, in order to examine the predictive value of the
A΄ TEST, 201 of the examined children were reevaluated by their teachers
two years after initial assessment. Analysis provided evidence of structure,
convergent, concurrent and discriminant validity and reliability, as well as
predictive validity. Overall, the Α' TEST predicted that 9.1% of the children
were not school-ready, giving a 98.5% correct prediction when compared
with the teachers’ evaluations two years later. In conclusion, the Α' TEST is
a valid and appropriate screening tool for school readiness.
Key words: school readiness, screening, learning difficulties, validation.
The transition to school is an important milestone
in the developmental course of young children1.
For a smooth transition from kindergarten to
school, children need to be prepared to learn.
The concept of preparedness for school entry
is often referred to as school readiness2-4.
School readiness has been conceptualized as a
multifaceted construct that includes, but is not
limited to, preliteracy and prenumeracy skills.
Furthermore, it involves important factors
such as cognition, language, health, motor
skills, behavior and socio-emotional status5,6.
These fundamental factors facilitate children’s
socialization, communication and engagement
in both structured and unstructured activities7,8.
Even though there is no universal definition
of school readiness, general agreement is
commonly seen regarding the relationship
between a smooth transition into school and
early academic success9.
Traditionally, chronological age has served as
the criterion for school entry. However, age
sets only a minimum eligibility requirement,
rather than being a measure of readiness per se.
Indeed, preschoolers are heterogeneous due to
variability in preschool duration and in the types
of programs offered by different preschools.
Therefore, children are not uniformly prepared
to follow a standardized curriculum, and the use
of chronological age as a measure of readiness
is unreliable. Indeed, research indicates that
chronological age alone is not sufficient for
predicting later school performance10. In fact,
children’s readiness for school comprises five
dimensions: physical health, socio-emotional
development, approaches to learning, language
and cognitive development11.
Screening measures, which vary greatly from
country to country, are widely used to detect
children who are at risk for educational
difficulties12. The Phelps Kindergarten Readiness
Scale (PKRS) focused on three domains
(verbal, perceptual and auditory) that were
correlated with later academic achievement13.
The Miller Assessment for Preschoolers (MAP)
and the Pediatric Examination of Educational
The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2014; 56: 374-384 Original
Readiness (PEER) are similar assessment tools
used for early identification of children with
developmental disabilities14. Although scores
from these exams cover socio-emotional and
behavioral domains, in addition to cognitive
and literacy abilities, their predictive value
has been questioned due to the non-negligible
number of false negative results obtained15,16.
The importance of early identification of these
children is based on several factors: first, early
intervention programs may influence the child’s
later academic and social achievements; second,
developmental processes are more flexible in
young children; and third, there exists the
possibility for prevention of secondary problems,
i.e., social and emotional difficulties17-19.
Certainly, screening alone is not sufficient,
and further assessment may be necessary to
ultimately determine appropriate placement or
instruction for a child20.
Although the use of screening tools for
determining the readiness of children to enter
school is prevalent and likely to continue21, such
tests are frequently criticized, and their use as
a criterion to establish school preparedness
is controversial22. For example, it has been
suggested that screening methods should not
exclude children from programs for which they
are legally eligible; instead, they should only
be used to identify those children needing
educational assistance. Unbiased, ethical
practice would involve accepting the entire
spectrum of children into the educational
system, identifying any special needs that
they may have, and offering them the best
possible opportunity to grow and learn. Also,
it is imperative that schools be well prepared
to adopt approaches that will accommodate
individual differences, rather than operating
under the assumption that children enter school
with homogeneous skills4. For these reasons,
the concept of school readiness is shifting
away from the viewpoint that the child must
fit the rigid expectations of the school, and
the notion that successful school experiences
require mutual adaptability and individualized
educational instruction is emerging23,24.
While measures have predominantly focused
on the importance of cognitive skills and
emergent literacy with regard to later academic
achievement, other dimensions of readiness
have received less attention25. It has been
suggested that assessment of readiness for
school should encompass not only cognitive
and literacy abilities, but also aspects of the
socio-emotional and behavioral domains13,26,
such as getting along with others, attitudes
toward oneself and others, persistence in tasks,
and engaging in conversation and cooperation.
Thus, school readiness procedures should shift
their emphasis toward using a multidimensional
approach27.
Children who enter school ready to learn
are expected to achieve more academically21.
Longitudinal research findings have
demonstrated that early math, reading and
attention skills are important predictors of later
academic success2,28-30. However, less research
has been conducted on early socio-emotional
development, and its association with future
academic outcomes and school adjustment29,31.
Recent studies, nonetheless, support the
significance of social and emotional aspects,
both as indicators and as predictors of later
school success5,32.
A very important skill inherent in the process of
learning is visual perception. Visual perception
is the ability to process and organize visual
information from the environment. A more
practical definition of visual perception is the
capacity to interpret or give meaning to what
is seen. This definition includes recognition,
insight and interpretation at the higher levels
of the central nervous system of what is
seen33. Most children are able to integrate
these abilities by the time they start school.
This is important, because approximately
three-quarters of all classroom learning is
visual. A child with even mild visual-perceptual
difficulties will struggle with learning in the
classroom and, often, in other areas of life. One
of the instruments used for assessing children’s
visual perceptual strengths and weaknesses is
the TVPS-R34, along with its newer version, the
TVPS-335. It includes the following subtests:
visual discrimination, visual memory, visual-
spatial relationships, form constancy, visual
sequential memory, visual figure-ground and
visual-closure36. Another recently developed
tool is the Developmental Test of Visual
Perception-2nd Edition (DTVP-2)37. Statistically
significant correlations between the DTVP-2 and
TVPS-3 total scale scores and subscale scores
were found. Internal consistency of items
Volume 56 • Number 4 Screening Tool for School Readiness 375
for the DTVP-2 and TVPS-3 total scores was
>0.80, and internal consistency of items for
the subscale scores was >0.70. The DTVP-2
exhibited evidence of convergent validity with
the TVPS-338. Similar results were found when
assessing learners with learning difficulties39.
Another important area associated with vision
and learning is visual motor skills: the use
of vision and the hands to perform tasks.
Examples of this are writing and drawing.
The TVMS-3 measures how well individuals
can coordinate and visually guide fine-motor
movements by asking individuals to reproduce
39 increasingly complex geometric designs40.
Nine types of errors are identified: incorrect
closures; incorrect angles; line quality; line
lengths; line connections; modification of size
or part; addition or deletion of a part; rotation
or reversal; and shape overlap. By analyzing
these errors, the therapist gets a detailed
evaluation of visual motor skills. When used
in conjunction with a visual perception test,
the TVMS-3 can differentiate visual-motor
and perceptual impairments, although visual
perception and visual motor skills are usually
significantly correlated41
Notwithstanding the abundance of screening
tools for children prior to school entrance, no
such tool had been developed in Greece, and
none of the existing ones had been translated
into the Greek language. The aim of this study
was to develop and validate the Α' TEST: a
comprehensive school readiness tool to be
administered individually to Greek children
prior to school entrance.
Material and Methods
Sample
The sample consisted of 2002 preschool
children recruited from 80 kindergartens in
the Athens area. Kindergartens were selected
using simple random sampling from a registry
provided by the Greek Ministry of Education.
The study sample consisted of 1069 (53.4%)
boys and 933 (46.6%) girls, with a mean age
of 5.8 years old (range: 5.2–6.2 years), who
would start going to school the following year.
Instruments
Test of Visual-Perceptual Skills-Revised
(TVPS-R) and Test of Visual Motor Skills-3
(TVMS-3)
The TVPS-R and TVMS-3 were assessed by an
experienced pediatric occupational therapist,
with individual scores reported for every
child. These scores were also transformed into
five ordinal categories, the first three being
underachievers, i.e., children with severe, mild
and possible difficulties, and the other two,
achievers (medium and high).
The Α' TEST (see Appendix A)
The selection and implementation of the
items included in the Α' TEST involved focus
group discussions by members of the Child
Developmental Assessment Unit of the Medical
School of the University of Athens, who had
considerable clinical experience.
The verbal subtest is an overall measure of the
child’s ability to reason verbally. It assesses
children’s ability to listen to a question, draw
upon information learned from both formal and
informal education, reason through an answer
and express their thoughts aloud.
Critical
reasoning Language
skills Abstract
thinking Visual
perception Visual
motor skills Organizational
skills
Severe
difficulty 38
(1.9%) 30
(1.5%) 68
(3.4%) 38
(1.9%) 12
(0.6%)
Mild
difficulty 100
(5.0%) 120
(6.0%) 60
(3.0%) 130
(6.5%) 110
(5.5%)
Possible
difficulty 54
(2.7%) 48
(2.4%) 130
(6.5%) 166
(8.3%) 70
(3.5%) 164
(8.2%)
Medium
achiever 1564
(78.2%) 1590
(79.5%) 1434
(71.7%) 1504
(75.2%) 1172
(58.6%) 1476
(73.8%)
Advanced
achiever 242
(12.1%) 216
(10.8%) 310
(15.5%) 164
(8.2%) 638
(31.9%) 358
(17.9%)
Table I. Classification of Children According to Their A' TEST Score Subscales in Absolute Numbers
and Percentages.
376 Thomaidis L, et al The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics • July-August 2014
Abstract thinking: This part of the test consists
of 3 questions asking how two objects are
alike/similar regarding their use. E.g., How
are a pencil and a marker alike?
Critical reasoning: This consists of 3 questions
about social situations or common concepts
of right/wrong. This task assesses children’s
ability to examine a problem and find solutions.
E.g., Why should young children not play
with knives?
Language skills: This consists of 3 questions
involving sentence completion. The examinee
is given an unfinished sentence and asked to
find the missing word based on the sentence’s
content. Each sentence involves clues that lead
to a specific word. This part of the test assesses
working memory and children’s language ability
with respect to choosing the right form of
a word to complete a sentence. E.g., In the
morning there is light; at night there is........?
Scores assigned to answers in the verbal subtest
ranged from 0 to 2: two for the right answer
without help; one for the right answer with
encouragement from the examiner, as indicated
in the test’s instruction manual; and zero for
the wrong answer or no answer.
Visual perception: Children are given rows
of symbols and target symbols, and asked to
mark whether or not the target symbols appear
in each row.
Visual motor skills: Children are asked to
copy 5 shapes, in order to assess their drawing
accuracy and spatial perception skills.
Organizational skills: This part of the test
consists of 3 cards describing a short story.
It assesses children’s ability to focus their
attention and quickly scan, discriminate between
and sequentially order visual information. It
requires planning ability.
As in the case of the TVPS-R and TVMS-3,
the scores for each subtest were transformed
into five ordinal categories (severe difficulty,
mild difficulty, possible difficulty, medium
achievers and high achievers). Additionally,
based on the scores of all the subtests, the
children were categorized into two major groups
corresponding to the values of a binary variable
characterizing their school readiness (yes/no).
At the same time, the kindergarten teachers
were requested to fill out an evaluation form for
each child (see Appendix B), based on which
the conclusion about the teacher’s opinion
was reached. This was a binary decision as
to whether a child was school ready or not.
Two years later, in order to examine the
predictive value of the Α' TEST, 10% of the
original sample (200 children) were randomly
invited for evaluation by their teachers, with
parental consent. The random selection followed
this pattern: 30 of the randomly invited children
belonged to the group originally characterized
as not being school ready, and the rest (170
children) were randomly selected from among
those originally characterized as school ready.
The teacher’s evaluation (see Appendix C) also
led to a binary decision as to whether the child
Subscale Boys Girls p (t-test)
Visual perception (A' test) 12.65±2.32 13.09±2.45 <0.01
TVPS-R 6.64±1.33 6.85±1.43 <0.01
Visual motor skills (A' test) 9.55±1.98 10.03±2.01 <0.01
TVMS-3 19.05±4.07 19.52±4.73 <0.01
Table II. Mean Scores ± Standard Deviations of the A' TEST Visual Perception and Visual
Motor Skills Subscales and the TVPS-R and TVMS-3 Tests According to the Gender of Study
Participants; Gender Comparisons of the Means with the Independent Samples t-test.
Estimated
value
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Sensitivity 79.4% 72.5% 85.0%
Specificity 97.7% 96.3% 98.3%
Positive predictive value 77.0% 69.8% 82.6%
Negative predictive value 98.0% 97.2% 98.6%
Table III. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV of the A' TEST Evaluation with Respect to the
Kindergartens Teachers’ Evaluations.
Volume 56 • Number 4 Screening Tool for School Readiness 377
had learning difficulties or not. The reason
why the reevaluation was performed two
years rather than one year after the child’s
entry into primary school was twofold: first,
to allow for the child to fully adapt to the
new school conditions, and second, to allow
for the schoolteacher to form a comprehensive
assessment of the child.
Statistical analysis
The structure validity of the Α' TEST was
assessed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
using the principal components approach. Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values >0.5 indicate robust
estimation. The Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue
>1) was used in order to determine the number
of extracted components to be retained for
further analysis, while varimax rotation was
applied to the extracted components in order
to increase their interpretability. The convergent
and discriminant validity was confirmed
with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Confirmatory fit indices (CFI) >0.90 and root
mean square error of approximations (RMSEA)
<0.10 indicated good model fit. Cronbach’s
α reliability coefficient was calculated as a
measure of internal consistency. According to
Nunnaly’s criterion, a Cronbach’s α value >0.7
defines an acceptable consistency between the
examined items.
Continuous variables were presented as mean
± standard deviation (SD) and between-group
differences were tested with the independent
samples t-test and their correlations with
Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Statistical
significance was set at 0.05. Ordinal and binary
categorical variables were presented as absolute
frequencies and percentages. Chi-square tests
were applied to test the homogeneity of their
distributions. Kendall’s tau-c was calculated
to examine the level of agreement between
categorical variables.
Finally, cross-tabulation of binary variables
resulted in 2x2 contingency tables, yielding
absolute frequencies of true positives (TP),
true negatives (TN), false positives (FP) and
false negatives (FN), from which calculations
produced the values of sensitivity, specificity,
positive predictive value (PPV) and negative
predictive value (NPV) with their 95%
confidence intervals (CI).
Results
Structure, convergent and discriminant
validity and reliability of the A' TEST
Exploratory factor analysis using the principal
components approach applied to the original 21
items extracted six components that explained
76% of the total variability. The items that
entered into each of the six components perfectly
matched the constructs of the six subtests
(structure validity). When Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) was applied, the goodness-
of-fit of the 6-component model confirmed
(CFI=0.895 and RMSEA=0.033) the theoretical
construct of the Α' TEST school readiness
dimensions to the sample data (convergent
and discriminant validity). Finally, Cronbach’s
α reliability coefficient for the Α' TEST was
0.84, revealing very good internal consistency
of the included items.
Classification of children with the Α' TEST
In general, the different Α' TEST subsets
showed a similar pattern of distribution (Table
I). More than 50% of children were classified
as medium achievers in all A΄ TEST subsets.
In five of the six subsets, almost 90% of
children were medium or advanced achievers.
However, when the children in each subtest
were divided into two groups (children with
and without learning difficulties), significant
differences were observed.
As figure 1 shows and as is proven by the
chi-square test of homogeneity (p<0.01),
the proportion of children who had difficulty
in performing the tasks varied significantly
between the different tests. Specifically, with
Estimated
value
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Sensitivity 93.3% 76.5% 98.8%
Specificity 99.4% 96.3% 99.9%
Positive predictive value (PPV) 96.6% 80.4% 99.8%
Negative predictive value (RHV) 98.8% 95.4% 99.8%
Table IV. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV of the A' TEST Evaluation with Respect to the
Schoolteachers’ Evaluations two Years Later.
378 Thomaidis L, et al The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics • July-August 2014
regard to visual perception skills the proportion
of non-achievers was as high as 16.7%, and for
abstract thinking the proportion was 12.9%.
For the other four subtests the proportion
was below 10%.
Concurrent validity of the Α' TEST
Pearson’s coefficient between visual perception
as measured by the Α' TEST and by the
TVPS-R was r=0.90 (p<0.001), and between
visual-motor coordination results from the A΄
TEST and the ΤVΜS-3 was r=0.60 (p<0.001).
Moreover, Kendall’s tau-c showed a very good
level of agreement in the classification between
achievement levels in both tests. Specifically,
Kendall’s tau–c between the TVPS-R and A΄
TEST visual perception subscales was 0.88, and
between the TVMS-3 and A΄ TEST visual-motor
coordination subscales was 0.92.
Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis revealed the
stability of the Α' TEST visual perception and
visual motor skills subtests, finding the same
patterns of statistically significant differences
between the two genders as the TVPS-R and
TVMS-3 (see table II).
Overall, of the 2002 children examined, the
Α' TEST predicted that 182 (9.1%) of them
were not school ready and that the other
1820 (90.9%) were school ready. Comparison
between children’s school readiness levels
(yes/no) according to the Α' TEST and
the kindergarten teachers’ evaluations also
demonstrated a high level of accuracy in the
detection of potential learning problems in
children. Importantly, using the Α' TEST, we
detected overall readiness levels that were
almost identical to those obtained through
teacher evaluations. Indeed, Kendall’s tau-c
coefficient was 0.94, corresponding to the
high level of observed agreement between the
two procedures. Of the 182 children predicted
by the Α' TEST to have learning difficulties,
teachers confirmed this prediction for 139
children (TP) and disagreed in 42 cases (FP).
Likewise, of the 1820 children predicted by
the Α' TEST not to have learning difficulties,
teachers confirmed this prediction for 1784
children (TN) and disagreed in 36 cases (FN),
giving a total of 78 (3.9%) cases in which
there was disagreement. From the above, the
corresponding indices, shown in table III, were
calculated, which confirmed the high level of
agreement of the Α' TEST with the kindergarten
teachers’ evaluations.
Predictive validity of the A' TEST
The predictive value of the Α' TEST was
measured in a sample of 200 children who
were re-assessed by their teachers two years
after initial examination. Teacher evaluations
were compared to the Α' TEST results in
order to estimate the predictive sensitivity and
specificity of the instrument. Of the 30 children
predicted by the A΄ TEST to have learning
difficulties, teachers confirmed this prediction
for 29 children (TP) and disagreed in only
one case (FP). Likewise, of the 170 children
predicted by the A΄ TEST not to have learning
difficulties, teachers confirmed this prediction
for 168 children (TN) and disagreed in only 2
cases (FN), giving in total only 3 (1.5%) false
predictions. From the above, the corresponding
indices, shown in table IV, were calculated,
which confirmed the high level of accuracy
of the Α' TEST in the primary detection of
children with learning difficulties.
Discussion
The present study describes the development,
application and validation of the Α' TEST, a
screening tool administered individually to
children prior to school entry. The Α' TEST
is an easily applied tool that examines a
comprehensive range of cognitive skills in
children in order to determine their readiness
for school entry.
The current findings showed that the Α' TEST
is a valid and appropriate screening tool for
school readiness, with evidence of structure,
convergent, concurrent and discriminant validity
and reliability, as well as predictive validity.
The Α' TEST demonstrated high levels of
accuracy in detecting children with learning
disabilities (concurrent validity) and very good
internal consistency (reliability). The cognitive
subsets of
Fig. 1. Proportion of children who encountered difficulty
in performing the tasks in the six subtests.
Volume 56 • Number 4 Screening Tool for School Readiness 379
the A΄ TEST that related to visual-perceptual
skills and visual-motor skills correlated very
well with the standardized TVPS-R and TVMS-
3 scales. The A΄ TEST also showed a high
correlation with the kindergarten teachers’
evaluations for determining school readiness.
Moreover, in children who were evaluated by
their schoolteachers two years after initial
assessment, the A΄ TEST demonstrated almost
perfect predictive validity for detecting children
with learning difficulties. The high positive and
negative predictive values bear the strongest
evidence for the necessity of utilizing the A΄
TEST as a standard screening procedure for
Greek children prior to school entrance. The
aim of course is not segregation but its exact
opposite, i.e., identification of children who
may encounter potential difficulties in school
so that they may be assisted to integrate
seamlessly with the rest of the class.
Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize
that the A΄ TEST is to be utilized solely as a
screening measure that may identify children
who require more comprehensive evaluation.
The main limitation of this study is that it is
not truly multi-domain, inasmuch as it does not
incorporate an overall behavioral characteristics
checklist or screening for attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-like symptoms.
Also, although the children were checked for
auditory and visual acuity, this examination
was not comprehensive. Bearing in mind that
it has been shown that uncorrected refractive
errors were connected with school failure42, it
must be conceded that unidentified refractive
errors may be a confounding factor in the
assessment of visual perception.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first attempt in Greece to screen preschool
children for school readiness, and to use
such a large sample. Overall, in the current
sample, the A΄ TEST shows 9.1% of children
examined as not being school ready. Practically
the same percentage was indicated by the
kindergarten teachers’ evaluations. This is
an alarming proportion, especially in view of
the finding that almost all of these predicted
cases turned out to be, according to the
schoolteachers’ evaluations after two years,
children with learning difficulties. Even more
disturbing is the fact that in the area of visual
perception—crucially important for children
who are about to attend school, bearing in
mind that learning is very much centered
on vision—this proportion rises to 16.7%.
Abstract thinking also seems to require special
attention. These issues need to be addressed
as early as possible.
In conclusion, the Α' TEST is proven to be an
appropriate screening tool for school readiness,
with evidence of structure, convergent,
concurrent and discriminant validity and
reliability, as well as predictive validity in
detecting children with learning difficulties.
School professionals can use the Α' TEST with
confidence to screen children entering school.
REFERENCES
1. Justice LM, Bowles RP, Pence Turnbull KL, Skibbe
LE. School readiness among children with varying
histories of language difficulties. Dev Psychol 2009;
45: 460-476.
2. Duncan GJ, Dowsett CJ, Claessens A, et al. School
readiness and later achievement. Dev Psychol 2007;
43: 1428-1446.
3. La Paro KM, Kraft-Sayre M, Pianta RC. Preschool to
kindergarten transition activities: involvement and
satisfaction of families and teachers. J Res Child Educ
2003: 17: 147-158.
4. Pianta RC, Cox MJ, Snow KL. School Readiness and the
Transition to Kindergarten in the Era of Accountability.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 2007.
5. Romano E, Babchishin L, Pagani LS, Kohen D. School
readiness and later achievement: replication and
extension using a nationwide Canadian survey. Dev
Psychol 2010; 46: 995-1007.
6. Pagani LS, Fitzpatrick C, Archambault I, Janosz M.
School readiness and later achievement: a French
Canadian replication and extension. Dev Psychol 2010;
46: 984-994.
7. Heaviside S, Farris E. Public School Kindergarten
Teachers’ Views of Children’s Readiness for School.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics; 1993.
8. Rimm-Kaufman SE, Pianta RC, Cox MJ. Teachers’
judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten.
Early Child Res Q 2000; 15: 147-166.
9. Wesley PW, Buysse V. Making meaning of school
readiness in schools and communities. Early Child
Res Q 2003; 18: 351-375.
10. Kurdek LA, Sinclair RJ. Predicting reading and
mathematics achievement in fourth-grade children
from kindergarten readiness scores. J Educ Psychol
2001; 93: 451-455.
11. Kagan SL, Moore E, Bradekamp S. Reconsidering
Children’s Early Development and Learning: Toward
Common Views and Vocabulary. Washington, DC:
National Education Goals Panel, Goal 1 Technical
Planning Group; 1995.
380 Thomaidis L, et al The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics • July-August 2014
12. Scott MS, Delgado CF. Using educational placement in
third grade to select and validate a preschool screening
measure. Psychol Sch 2003; 40: 565-582.
13. Augustyniak KM, Cook-Cottone CP, Calabrese N. The
predictive validity of the Phelps Kindergarten Readiness
Scale. Psychol Sch 2004; 41: 509–516.
14. Parush S, Yochman A, Jessel AS, Shapiro M, Mazor-
Karsenty T. Construct validity of the Miller assessment
for preschoolers and the pediatric examination of
educational readiness for children. Phys Occup Ther
Pediatr 2002; 22: 7-27.
15. Blackman JA, Bretthauer J. Examining high-risk children
for learning problems in the health care setting.
Pediatrics 1990; 86: 398-404.
16. Widerstrom AH, Miller LJ, Marzano RJ. Sex and race
differences in the identification of communicative
disorders in preschool children as measured by the
Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. J Commun Disord
1986; 19: 219-226.
17. Dworkin PH. Ready to learn: a mandate for pediatrics.
J Dev Behav Pediatr 1993; 14: 192-196.
18. Shonkoff JP, Meisels SJ. Early childhood intervention:
the evolution of a concept. In: Meisels SJ, Shonkoff
JP (eds). Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention.
Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press;
1990: 3-31.
19. Simeonsson RJ, Bailey DB. Evaluating programme
impact: levels of certainty. In: Mitchell D, Brown RI
(eds). Early Intervention Studies for Young Children
with Special Needs. London, UK: Chapman and Hall;
1991: 280-296.
20. Meisels SJ, Wiske MS, Tivnan T. Predicting school
performance with the Early Screening Inventory. Psychol
Sch 1984; 21: 25-33.
21. High PC. School readiness. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 1008-
1015.
22. Carlton MP, Winsler A. School readiness: the need for
a paradigm shift. School Psych Rev 1999; 28: 338-352.
23. Kagan SL. Readiness past, present, and future: shaping
the agenda. Young Child 1992; 48: 48-53.
24. Watson R. Rethinking readiness for learning. In: Olson
DR, Torrance N. (eds). The Handbook of Education
and Human Development: New Models of Learning,
Teaching, and Schooling. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell;
1996: 148-172.
25. Hair E, Halle T, Terry-Humen E, Lavelle B, Calkins J.
Children’s school readiness in the ECLS-K: predictions
to academic, health, and social outcomes in first grade.
Early Child Res Q 2006; 21: 431-454.
26. Gracey CA, Azzara CV, Reinherz H. Screening revisited:
a survey of U. S. requirements. J Spec Educ 1984; 18:
101-107.
27. Lewit EM, Baker LS. School readiness. Future Child
1995; 5: 128-139.
28. Grissmer D, Grimm KJ, Aiyer SM, Murrah WM, Steele
JS. Fine motor skills and early comprehension of
the world: two new school readiness indicators. Dev
Psychol 2010; 46: 1008-1017.
29. La Paro KM, Pianta RC. Predicting children’s
competence in the early school years: a meta-analytic
review. Rev Educ Res 2000; 70: 443-484.
30. Yen C, Konold TR, McDermott PA. Does learning
behavior augment cognitive ability as an indicator of
academic achievement? J Sch Psychol 2004; 42: 157-
169.
31. Tramontana MG, Hooper SR, Selzer SC. Research on
the preschool prediction of later academic achievement:
a review. Dev Rev 1988; 8: 89-146.
32. Bulotsky-Shearer RJ, Fantuzzo JW. Preschool behavior
problems in classroom learning situations and literacy
outcomes in kindergarten and first grade. Early Child
Res Q 2011; 26: 61-73.
33. Buktenica NA. Perceptual mode dominance: an approach
to assessment of first grade reading and spelling.
Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention, A.P.A. 1968;
3: 585-586.
34. Gardner MF. Test of Visual Perceptual Skills (non-
motor) Revised. Hydesville CA: Psychological and
Educational Publications Incorporated; 1996.
35. Martin N. Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-3
(TVPS-3). Academic Therapy Publications; 2010.
http://www.academictherapy.com/detailATP.
tpl?eqskudatarq=8409-5
36. Brown GT, Gaboury I. The measurement properties
and factor structure of the Test of Visual-Perceptual
Skills-Revised: implications for occupational therapy
assessment and practice. Am J Occup Ther 2006; 60:
182-93.
37. Hammill DD, Pearson NA, Voress JK. Developmental
Test of Visual Perception: Second Edition (DTVP-2).
Western Psychological Services; 1993. http://portal.
wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,69628&_
dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
38. Brown T, Hockey SC. The validity and reliability of
Developmental Test of Visual Perception-2nd edition
(DTVP-2). Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2013; 33: 426-439.
39. Richmond J, Holland K. Correlating the Developmental
Test of Visual Perception-2 (DTVP-2) and the Test
of Visual Perceptual Skills Revised (TVPS-R) as
assessment tools for learners with learning difficulties.
S Afr J Occup Ther 2011; 41: 33-37.
40. Brown T, Unsworth C. Construct validity of the Test of
Visual-Motor Skills-Revised (TVMS-R): an evaluation
using the Rasch Measurement Model. Scand J Occup
Ther 2009; 16: 133-145.
41. Goyen TA, Lui K, Woods R. Visual-motor, visual-
perceptual, and fine motor outcomes in very-low-
birthweight children at 5 years. Dev Med Child Neurol
1998; 40: 76-81.
42. Özmert EN, Yurdakök K, Soysal S, et al. Relationship
between physical, environmental and sociodemographic
factors and school performance in primary
schoolchildren. J Trop Pediatr 2005; 51: 25-32.
Volume 56 • Number 4 Screening Tool for School Readiness 381
CHILD ASSESSMENT
A. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
1. Would you like to tell me which one is taller, a flower or a tree?
2. Would you like to count to ten?
3. Can you tell me where we buy gasoline?
4. Do you know what firemen do?
The first four questions are not scored
B. CRITICAL REASONING POINTS
5. Why should young children not play with knives?
6. Why do people have curtains in their homes?
7. Why do we have refrigerators in our homes?
Each correct answer: without assistance is scored with 2 points
with assistance is scored with 1 point
a wrong answer is scored with 0 points
C. LANGUAGE SKILLS POINTS
8. John is a boy; Maria is a…. (girl)
9. In the morning there is light; at night there is... (darkness)
10. The rock is heavy; the feather is… (light)
Each correct answer: without assistance is scored with 2 points
with assistance is scored with 1 point
a wrong answer is scored with 0 points
D. ABSTRACT THINKING POINTS
11. How are a pencil and a marker alike?
12. How are an umbrella with a waterproof jacket alike?
Each correct answer: without assistance is scored with 2 points
with assistance is scored with 1 point
a wrong answer is scored with 0 points
E. VISUAL MOTOR SKILLS POINTS
13. Copying shapes
F. VISUAL PERCEPTION POINTS
14. Exercises of visual discrimination (10 sets)
Each correct answer: without assistance is scored with 2 points
with assistance is scored with 1 point
a wrong answer is scored with 0 points
Time limit: 20 seconds for each image
G. ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS POINTS
16. Picture arrangement
Success on first attempt 2 points
Success on second attempt 1 point
Failure 0 points
382 Thomaidis L, et al The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics • July-August 2014
Appendix A. The A΄ TEST
Appendix B. Kindergarten teacher questionnaire
Please check the answer that you believe describes the behavior of your pupil during the past six
months. Your answers should be spontaneous, according to how the child appears to you.
Volume 56 • Number 4 Screening Tool for School Readiness 383
In the class with regard to
friends
O Does not have friends O Has friends O Is very popular
The way the child
communicates with
his/her classmates
O Is irritable; hits or yells O Handles relationships with the
teacher’s help
O Finds his/her own solutions;
sometimes asks for the teacher’s
help
With regard to the school
progaam
O Encounters difficulties
with changes O Follows the program without
difficulty O Likes new things
In relation to game rules
O Cannot follow the rules O Follows the rules most of the
time
O Follows the rules and can
organize activities with his/her
classmates
When sitting down to
perform a task at his/her
desk
O Does not start witout
encouragement O Performs the task on his/her
own O Understands the task before
the instructions are given
Timely handling of school
tasks
O Is very slow O Works normally most of the
time O Finishes quickly and
correctly most of the time
In story reading
O Does not listen and does
not pay attention to the
pictures
O Listens carefully and asks
questions
O Answers correctly, making
appropriate remarks; connects
stories with own experiences
When working on school
tasks
O Constantly distracted by
external stimuli (looks away,
dawdles, drops pencil) O Finishes without distractions O Finishes without distractions
and without mistakes
Final judgment by the
teacher (kept confidential
from the parent)
O Immature O Normal O Very good
Special questions Other remarks
Complains of pain or sickness
O Very often O Sometimes O Rarely
Makes unusual gestures with his/her hands
O Very often O Sometimes O Rarely
Has tics
O Very often O Sometimes O Rarely
Is afraid
O Very often O Sometimes O Rarely
Stutters
O Very often O Sometimes O Rarely
Appendix C. Schoolteachers’ questionnaire
Teacher’s full name:…………………………………………Date:……………
Child’s full name: …………………………………………….School:…………
1. Does the child attend, in parallel with regular school classes, any special supportive classes (if you
have such classes at your school)? YES NO
2. Do you believe that the child’s performance is low in reading? YES NO
3. Do you believe that the child’s performance is low in arithmetic? YES NO
4. Do you believe that the child’s performance is low in writing? YES NO
5. Do you believe that the child’s performance is low in all areas? YES NO
6. Do you think that the child has learning gaps with regard to the curriculum of the class?
YES NO
7. Do you believe that the child needs the intervention of a specialist, and would it be better if the
child attended a special supportive class (if you have such a class at your school)? YES NO
8. Do you believe that the child’s behavior obstructs him/her from acquiring new knowledge?
YES NO
Comments: ………………………………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………..…….
………………………………………………………………………………………...........
384 Thomaidis L, et al The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics • July-August 2014
