Content uploaded by Barbara Wasik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Barbara Wasik on Nov 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dialog, 18(3), 133-150
Copyright © 2015,
ISSN: 1930-9325
The project that supported this literature review was contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., by the
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. Opinions and statements included in the paper are solely those of the authors, and do not
necessarily represent the views of the sponsoring agencies.
DIALOG FROM THE FIELD
Tailored Teaching: Emerging Themes from the Literature on Teachers’
Use of Ongoing Child Assessment to Individualize Instruction
Lauren Akers and Patricia Del Grosso
Mathematica Policy Research
Emily Snell
Temple University
Sally Atkins-Burnett
Mathematica Policy Research
Barbara A. Wasik
Temple University
Judith Carta
University of Kansas
Kimberly Boller and Shannon Monahan
Mathematica Policy Research
Ongoing child assessment is increasingly viewed as a tool for informing and
individualizing instruction in early childhood, yet little is known about how ongoing
child assessment is implemented at the classroom or the programmatic level. This
literature review focuses on how teachers use ongoing assessment and adjust instructional
practices and content to better meet the individual strengths, needs, and interests of young
children. We identified four important issues in the literature in ongoing assessment in
early childhood: (1) many teachers do not consistently collect ongoing assessment data,
nor do they use it for instruction and individualization; (2) barriers to using data include
lack of pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge about how to conduct assessments
and interpret data; (3) teachers want more training and professional development in this
area; and (4) more needs to be known about how to support the successful
implementation of ongoing child assessment.
Keywords: ongoing assessment; individualization; instruction
134 AKERS ET AL.
Over the past two decades, there has been considerable growth in the use of assessments in early
childhood education settings (Snow & Van Hemel, 2008). For many years, the most common use
of assessment in early childhood was to provide information on children’s developmental status
and examine how they performed relative to peers or to specified criteria in order to identify and
monitor the development of students who had special needs. However, with the heightened
emphasis placed on using data to make decisions at all levels of education in the last decade,
increased attention has been given to how early childhood teachers use ongoing assessment to
adjust instructional practices and content to better meet the individual strengths, needs, and
interests of young children (Peisner-Feinberg & Buysse, 2013; Snow & Van Hemel, 2008).
Individualization of instruction has been considered a “best practice” in early education
programs (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2005) and is now a
requirement in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (Head Start Performance
Standards, 2011).
Definition of Ongoing Assessment and Individualization
Ongoing child assessment refers to the process of “continuing observation and documentation
teachers complete to determine whether teaching practices need to be adapted to better meet
children’s needs” (National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning, 2012, p. 1). In other
words, teachers use ongoing child assessment to monitor the progress of children over time in
order to assure that children meet developmental and educational goals. When used for
individualizing, teachers examine each child’s progress over time with the intended goal of
individualizing instruction to improve the child’s progress. In this context, the term
individualized is used to refer to instruction that is responsive to each child’s unique strengths
and challenges through modifications that better meet the child’s individual needs. These
modifications might include increased opportunities to practice a skill, knowledge, or behavior;
changes in curriculum; adaptations of instructional approaches; and environmental or other
supports.
Purposes of Ongoing Assessment
Ongoing child assessment has four primary purposes: (1) to inform the teacher’s instruction for
the entire group; (2) to determine whether current instructional approaches are supporting a
child; (3) to determine whether and which additional support or modifications to instruction are
needed for the child; and (4) when appropriate, to determine whether the child’s rate of growth
has changed in response to the support or modification. Overall, in early childhood settings, the
goal is to use information from ongoing assessment to track progress and then scaffold children’s
learning to support school-readiness.
Approaches to Ongoing Assessment
There are two general approaches to ongoing assessment in early childhood education: use of (1)
general outcome measures (GOMs) and (2) curriculum-embedded measures tailored to a
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 135
particular curriculum. Table 1 presents examples of assessment tools used by teachers in
classrooms to obtain information about children’s development.
TABLE 1
Ongoing Assessment Tools Used in Early Childhood Education
Name of Tool
Description
General Outcomes Measurementa
Individual Growth and
Development Indicators (IGDIs)
for Infants and Toddlers
(Greenwood et al. 2011b;
Greenwood et al. 2006; Walker et
al. 2008)
Different tasks used to monitor the growth of infants and
toddlers across multiple domains. A school-age version
(DIBELS) is available. A technology component is also
available.
Preschools IGDIs
(Missall et al. 2008; Roseth et al.
2012)
Different tasks used to monitor the growth of
preschoolers in language and literacy (Get It, Got It, Go).
A school-age version (DIBELS) is available. A
technology component is also available.
m-CLASS CIRCLE
(Amplify Education n.d.)
A web-based system that includes ongoing assessment
tools and data linked to approaches for individualizing
instruction in the social, emotional, early literacy, and
early math domains for 3- to 5-year-olds. A school-age
version is available. A web-based system is also
available.
Curriculum-Embedded Approachesb,c
Child Observation Record (COR),
COR Advantage
(High/Scope Educational Research
Foundation 2003, 2013)
A curriculum-based assessment providing systematic
observational assessment of young children's knowledge
and abilities in multiple domains of development. The
Preschool COR is used to assess children from age 2½ to
6 years, and the Infant-Toddler COR is for programs
serving children between ages 6 weeks and 3 years. A
technology component is available.
Desired Results Developmental
Profile (DRDP©), DRDP 2015
(California Department of
Education and Center for Child and
Family Studies at WestEd 2013,
2015)
A criterion-referenced assessment designed to assess
multiple developmental domains for children from birth to
age 12. The DRDP is aligned with California learning and
development foundations. A technology component is
available.
Learning Accomplishment Profile
(LAP) and
Early Learning Accomplishment
Profile (E-LAP)
(Hardin and Peisner-Feinberg 2001,
2004)
A criterion-referenced observational assessment used to
assess development across six domains. The E-LAP
assesses children from birth to 36 months old (414
developmental skills arranged hierarchically). The LAP
assesses children from 36 to 72 months old (383
developmental skills arranged hierarchically). A
technology component is available.
136 AKERS ET AL.
Name of Tool
Description
The Ounce Scale(™)
(Meisels et al. 2003)
A criterion-referenced observational assessment used to
document the development of children from birth to 42
months. It consists of three interrelated elements:
observation records, family albums, and developmental
profiles and standards. A technology component is
available.
Teaching Strategies: GOLD® d
(Teaching Strategies, Inc. 2011)
A criterion-referenced observation-based assessment
system. It is grounded in 38 research-based objectives that
include predictors of school success and are aligned with
state early learning standards, the Common Core State
Standards for kindergarten, and The Head Start Child
Development and Early Learning Framework. It can be
used with children from birth through kindergarten. A
technology component is available.
aThe GOMs presented in this table are used for illustration purposes. These illustrations are assessments used in the
research studies we reviewed. The authors are not recommending particular measures for use.
bThe curriculum-embedded tools presented in this table are used for illustration purposes. These assessments were
reported as the primary assessment by more than 5 percent of teachers in the Head Start Family and Child
Experiences Survey (FACES) (Hulsey et al. 2010) and the Early Head Start Family and Child Experiences Study
(Baby FACES) (Vogel et al. 2011). The authors are not recommending particular measures for use.
cSee Halle et al. 2011 for more information on particular curriculum-embedded tools, and for information more
generally about how to evaluate an instrument’s reliability and validity.
dEarlier versions for Teaching Strategies GOLD® were called Creative Curriculum® Developmental Continuum for
Ages 3–5 (Teaching Strategies, Inc. 2001) and Creative Curriculum® Developmental Continuum for Infants,
Toddlers, & Twos (Teaching Strategies, Inc. 2006).
General outcomes measures. In the GOM approach, teachers use a brief measure
with strong evidence of reliability and validity to conduct frequent, standard assessments of
children’s progress toward a long-term goal. Central to this approach is the repeated
measurement of a few key skills that represent the entire skill set required to achieve a given
goal, rather than measuring the full skill set. A child’s increasing proficiency on a GOM is
indicated by improved performance on these same skills measured over time.
With GOMs, children’s performance may be measured as infrequently as three times per
year or as often as once per week (Jenkins et al. 2009). The probes to obtain these performance
samples typically range from one to five minutes, depending on the outcome (that is, the
knowledge, skill, or behavior) being measured. One common application of GOMs is Response
to Intervention (RTI)—an approach to early intervention involving the regular screening of all
children throughout the year. Children not progressing as expected receive intensive support as
well as frequent assessments to test whether the support is helping (Hamilton et al. 2009;
National Association for the Education of Young Children et al. 2012; Buysse and Peisner-
Feinberg 2013). GOMs typically do not focus on the full set of child outcome domains. Most
GOMs in preschool currently focus on language and literacy, and some focus on mathematics.
Curriculum-embedded approaches. The most commonly used systems for assessing
the progress of children in early care and education are curriculum-embedded approaches. These
assessments are used to examine children’s progress relative to early learning standards and the
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 137
skills and knowledge taught via a specific curriculum. Teachers using this approach often collect
assessment information as they are teaching their normal curriculum. The assessment tasks are
intended to be authentic in context; that is, they should mirror experiences typical to the child’s
daily life (Pretti-Frontczack et al. 2011). Some curriculum-embedded approaches are developed
by the curriculum developers to align closely with the material being taught (“curriculum-based
assessments” such as the Teaching Strategies: GOLD assessment used with the Creative
Curriculum), whereas other such assessments are derived from national standards and
developmental expectations (“curriculum-embedded assessments” such as Galileo and the Work
Sampling System).
Teachers typically assess children’s performance in relation to criteria on rubrics
provided by the assessment system. These rubrics specify different levels of performance based
on end-of-year goals, but often provide no guidance regarding children’s expected progress
throughout the year. In addition, although the tasks being assessed are embedded within daily
activities and aligned with curriculum goals, the tasks are not standardized and require teachers
to collect assessment data from multiple sources. The assessments may use a variety of data
collection methods, such as observation recording forms, worksheets, standardized assessments,
and portfolios.
Compared to GOMs, curriculum-embedded approaches are (1) more common in early
childhood settings than GOMs; (2) more demanding for a teacher to implement (that is, they
require greater teacher skills and knowledge because they are less proscriptive); and (3) more
comprehensive, as they traditionally cover several domains of development.
Policies and Evidence Supporting Use of Ongoing Assessment
Policymakers and other federal and state officials are increasingly recognizing the
importance of ongoing assessment to individualize instruction during early childhood. For
example, in the past five years, the Office of Head Start has elaborated its vision for preschool
child and family outcomes, added a stronger focus on program and classroom quality in its
monitoring system, and created professional development tools to support ongoing assessment in
daily practice. The Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework is a blueprint for achieving
the child-specific goals of the program through alignment of curricular approaches, assessments,
and professional development activities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2015).
In 2012, the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ Advisory Committee on Head Start
Research and Evaluation advocated investment in supporting evidence-based and data-informed
practices across all domains of quality teaching and learning (Advisory Committee on Head Start
Research and Evaluation, 2012).
Using ongoing child assessment to individualize instruction is considered a best practice
in early education programs (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2005;
Sandall, McLean, & Smith, 2000) and is a requirement in the Head Start Program Performance
Standards (2011). However, the existing evidence base on the features of high-quality
implementation and the effects of ongoing assessment on instructional quality and child
outcomes is limited and sometimes restricted to early elementary settings. The small body of
literature suggests that teachers who use ongoing assessment to individualize their instruction
reduce the school readiness gap for children at risk (Al Otaiba et al., 2011; Landry, Swank,
Anthony, & Assel, 2011). Some studies have also shown that these teachers design more
138 AKERS ET AL.
effective instructional programs, and have students who achieve better outcomes, than teachers
who do not assess progress. For example, studies have shown that ongoing assessment in reading
(sometimes combined with guidance for individualized instruction) raises teachers’ awareness of
students’ current levels of reading proficiency and improves the instructional decisions they
make (Connor et al., 2009; Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984). The use of ongoing assessment
data—often merged with other professional development supports, such as mentoring—has also
been linked to growth in literacy outcomes in preschool through first grade (Ball & Gettinger,
2009; Landry, Anthony, Swank, & Monseque-Bailey, 2009; Wasik, Hindman, & Jusczyk, 2009).
In one experimental study, infants and toddlers whose home visitors used progress monitoring
and received web-based guidance in making data-based intervention decisions demonstrated
more growth in their communication skills than those whose home visitors did not use progress
monitoring (Buzhardt et al., 2010; Buzhardt, Greenwood, Walker, Anderson, et al., 2011).
It is important to note that most of the available studies that provide evidence linking the
use of ongoing assessment to better instructional decision-making and positive child outcomes
relate to GOMs rather than curriculum-embedded approaches. These studies typically include
supports such as technology-enhanced systems that offer immediate, tailored feedback around
using data to tailor instruction, making it infeasible to isolate the effects of ongoing assessment
alone. The recommendations provided by the technology-enhanced systems may be a critical
factor in fostering improved instructional decision-making and child outcomes.
Knowledge Gaps Remain
Currently, Head Start requires that teachers aggregate and analyze assessment results
three times per year in their classrooms (Head Start Performance Standards, 2011). The intent is
for Head Start teachers to gather baseline data, make instructional changes based on mid-year
analysis, and use year-end data to report progress and inform program improvement. Similar
types of assessment are also being implemented in public schools using the Response to
Intervention (RTI) model (Gersten et al., 2009; Hamilton et al., 2009). Despite the importance of
using assessment to inform instruction and the requirements to do so, information on how
teachers actually collect and use assessment data to inform their practice and individualize for
children across early education–related disciplines is limited. Little is known about how or how
well teachers implement ongoing assessment to adjust instructional or caregiving practices and
content and thus better meet the individual strengths, needs, and interests. The current review
aims to highlight what is already known in the existing literature on the use of ongoing
assessment for individualization of instruction and identify important gaps in our understanding.
Specifically, this literature review seeks to answer the following questions:
What are the steps and activities involved when early childhood education teachers
use ongoing assessment to individualize instruction? In other words, what do early
childhood education teachers actually do and how are they doing it?
How do early childhood education teachers perceive ongoing assessment, and what
do they know about ongoing assessment practices?
What barriers do early childhood education teachers face when using ongoing
assessment to individualize instruction?
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 139
What supports can assist early childhood education teachers to use ongoing
assessment to individualize instruction
LITERATURE SEARCH
The literature search targeted research related to early childhood education (which we defined as
including children from birth through third grade) and early childhood special education. The
search was limited to references from 2002–2012; search terms are presented in Table 2.
Librarians conducted searches in Education Research Complete and the Education Resource
Information Center (ERIC) through EBSCOhost; librarians also conducted searches in Sage. In
addition, members of an expert consultant group recommended research that fell outside the
targeted years for the literature review, including research that was still in press. Together, the
literature search and the expert recommendations yielded 1,325 unduplicated references (1,281
references from the literature search and 44 from the expert recommendations). Based on a set of
criteria determined by the project team, trained reviewers carefully screened all identified
references for relevance. The vast majority of studies were screened out for being off topic; some
studies were screened out for not being a relevant document type (for example, a newspaper
article) or for not relating to early childhood. Screeners ultimately identified 173 references to
include in the review.
TABLE 2
Search Criteria
Search criteria
Parameters
Target
populations
Infant* OR toddler* OR preschool* OR “pre-school”* OR “early
elementary”
Search terms
Progress Monitoring (descriptor) OR “progress monitoring” OR “response to
intervention” OR “instructional effectiveness” OR “multi-tier* systems of
support”
Differentiated Instruction (descriptor) OR ([differentiated OR personal* OR
individualized] AND [assessment OR monitoring])
Curriculum-based Assessment (descriptor) OR “curriculum-based
assessment”
(Benchmark OR curriculum-embedded OR “curriculum embedded” OR
curriculum-referenced OR formative) AND assessment
(Data-based OR data-informed OR data-driven) AND (“decision making”
OR decision-making)
Years
2002–2012
140 AKERS ET AL.
THEMES FROM THE LITERATURE
Characteristics of the Literature Reviewed
Study designs. Throughout the remainder of this article, a “study” refers to any
reference included in the review, including empirical studies, conceptual pieces, best-practice
guides, and literature reviews. Of the 173 studies included in the review, almost half (48 percent)
were empirical studies, 36 percent were conceptual pieces, 13 percent were guides that provided
overviews of best practices or standards, and 2 percent were literature reviews or reviews of
measures. The empirical studies included 56 descriptive studies (of which 25 were
psychometric), 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 7 quasi-experimental designs (QEDs),
and 5 single-case designs (SCDs). Although curriculum-embedded approaches to ongoing
assessment are the most commonly used type of assessment in early childhood, most of the
empirical studies with more rigorous designs (that is, RCTs, QEDs, and SCDs) focused on
GOMs. The GOMs use standard tasks and the research gathered evidence of the reliability and
validity of those standard tasks.
Age groups and sample characteristics. Across all 173 studies, 92 discussed the
use of ongoing assessment to individualize instruction with students in early elementary school
(some studies also included students beyond third grade), 80 with children in preschool, and 35
with infants and toddlers. Of the 173 studies, 34 reported on more than one age group (e.g.,
preschool and early elementary). Sixty-nine studies included discussions on using ongoing
assessment with children with disabilities, and 34 studies included children enrolled in Head
Start or Early Head Start programs.
Domain. Across and within all age groups, studies most commonly discussed the use
of ongoing child assessment in the domains of language, literacy, or reading (47 percent of all
studies). Fewer studies focused on the use of ongoing assessment in the domains of mathematics
(16 percent) and social and emotional or behavioral outcomes (16 percent). (Please note that 29
percent of studies did not specify a domain. Science and motor development were covered by 2
percent and 1 percent of studies, respectively.)
Scope. As we discuss next, using ongoing assessment for individualization involves
multiple steps: deciding what data to collect and how; conducting the assessment; documenting,
organizing, and interpreting information; and making and implementing instructional decisions.
Rather than examining the process in its entirety, nearly all empirical studies in the review
focused on only one or two steps in the process of using ongoing assessment to tailor teaching. In
addition, most studies examined teachers’ use of this process with a particular assessment tool.
No studies examined implementation across a range of ongoing assessment tools.
Activities for Individualizing Instruction
To address the question of what teachers actually do when using ongoing assessment for
individualization, we report the various implementation activities discussed across the 173
studies. The activities identified in the review include selecting an observation or assessment
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 141
target and method, documenting and organizing information on children’s progress, and
interpreting and applying data to inform instruction and individualization.
Selecting an assessment target and method. Ongoing child assessment begins
when the teacher selects an assessment target and method. The assessment target is the
knowledge, skill, or behavior that the teacher wants to assess. Examples of assessment targets in
preschool include recognizing shapes or colors when they are named, showing an understanding
of cause-and-effect relationships, persisting in assembling a puzzle with fewer than 20 pieces,
and taking turns with another child when playing a matching game. The assessment method is
the way that the teacher gathers information about the skill, knowledge, or behavior of interest.
Examples of assessment methods include naturalistic observations; structured tasks, such as
asking a child to name pictures, shapes, numbers, or letters using flashcards; and standardized or
norm-referenced tests.
The assessment system that the teacher uses (which program managers—rather than
teachers—often select) can influence decisions about the target and method. Specifically, GOMs
typically define the target and method, while most curriculum-embedded approaches rely on
teachers to determine which learning objectives to assess and how to assess them within their
curricular activity. The supports available to the teacher within different assessment systems also
vary, and some assessment systems link more closely to the curriculum than others.
Literature discussing how teachers select assessment targets was conceptual rather than
empirical and consisted of recommendations for practice rather than what teachers actually do.
Recommendations included identifying targets that align with the curriculum; measure critical
outcomes of the curriculum; are teachable, observable, or measurable; are generalizable in that
they can be used and observed across multiple settings and promote skill development across
related domains; and are universally designed such that all children can participate, regardless of
the extent of any disabilities (Bagnato, McLean, Macy, & Neisworth, 2011; Fuchs & Deno,
1991; Good & Kaminski, 1996; Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2001; Hojnoski & Missall, 2007;
Hosp & Ardoin, 2008).
No studies focused specifically on teacher-level decision-making related to selecting an
assessment method. In early childhood education, researchers have promoted the use of authentic
assessments for instructional planning (defined as systematic recording of developmental
observations about the naturally occurring behaviors and functional competencies of young
children in daily routines by familiar and knowledgeable caregivers in the child’s life) over the
use of standardized, norm-referenced tests (Bagnato, Neisworth, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2010;
Bagnato et al., 2011). Some researchers maintain that authentic assessments are better suited for
the early childhood context because they are “developmentally appropriate, representative,
accurate, functional, and strengths based, especially for children with disabilities” (Bagnato et
al., 2011). Other researchers maintain the importance of looking at the skill in the same way
across time so that teachers can more easily attribute any change to differences in the child rather
than differences in the task.
Pretti-Frontczak and colleagues (2011) reviewed practice standards for assessment from
professional organizations, various committee reports, and legislative policies. They summarized
six common themes related to assessment practices for early childhood education, concluding
that assessments should be (1) authentic (through the use of tasks “that reflect typical
experiences rather than discrete isolated tasks that are irrelevant to the child’s daily life”), (2)
ongoing, (3) developmentally appropriate, (4) individualized, (5) natural (through the use of
142 AKERS ET AL.
structured observations of children doing typical tasks within their usual routine and setting), and
(6) multifaceted (through the use of multiple sources and approaches to assessment). It is
important to note that a long-standing tension exists between the use of standardized tasks versus
authentic activities for ongoing assessment. Supporters of standardized tasks argue for
consistent, reliable measurement that is objective. Alternatively, other researchers argue that
children are not good test takers and may not respond to standard tasks and/or may not
understand what they are being asked to do in a standard task.
Documenting and organizing information. Once teachers collect ongoing assessment
data, they need systems for documenting the information that enable reflection and interpretation
(Pretti-Frontczak et al., 2011). The systems should be organized in a way that enables teachers to
efficiently and easily access the data. In the literature reviewed, checklists and ratings were the
most commonly cited methods for documenting information (mentioned in 13 and 10 studies,
respectively), while other types of documentation include anecdotal records, children’s work
samples (for example, drawings, writing samples, classwork), audio recordings, language
samples (transcriptions of child language), and running records of oral reading. This information
is then often organized using various systems, including portfolios for compiling data from
multiple sources; graphs; and teacher-, school-, district-, or program-developed systems, such as
Excel spreadsheets or paper-based systems for recording data on children’s progress (see, for
example, Jarrett, Browne, & Wallin, 2006; McConnell & Missal, 2008). Prevalent in the
literature were studies that discussed web-based or technology-enhanced systems (see, for
example, Burke & Vannest, 2008; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1994; Ysseldyke & Bolt, 2007).
These systems include “off-the-shelf” programs for documenting, organizing, and assisting
teachers with instructional planning and individualization.
Interpreting and applying data to instruction. Once ongoing assessment data have
been collected, documented, and organized, the critical next steps involve interpreting the data
and then using the information to individualize instruction. Across the studies, teachers often
relied on web-based or technology-enhanced systems, coaches or mentors, or decision points set
by schools or districts to help them interpret data (Al Otaiba et al., 2011; Goertz, Nabors Oláh, &
Riggan, 2009; Roehrig, Duggar, Moats, Glover, & Mincey, 2008; Wasik et al., 2009). Studies
noted that teachers used ongoing assessment data to help them form small groups (DeBaryshe,
Gorecki, & Mishima-Young, 2009; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008, 2012; Wasik et al., 2009); create
and implement tiered tasks or lesson plans (Marcon, 2009; Wasik et al., 2009); and identify
children in need of one-on-one assistance (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008, 2012; Goertz et al., 2009).
Several studies looked at the efficacy of web-based or technology-enhanced systems
designed to assist teachers in using ongoing assessment data to inform instruction and
individualization (Al Otaiba et al., 2011; Bolt, Ysseldyke, & Patterson, 2010; Buzhardt et al.,
2010, Buzhardt, Greenwood, Walker, Anderson, et al., 2011; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, and
Stecker, 1991; Fuchs et al., 1994; Landry, Swank, Smith, Assel, & Gunnewig, 2006; Landry et
al., 2009; Landry et al., 2011; Ysseldyke & Bolt, 2007). Children whose teachers or home
visitors had access to a web- or computer-based system that provided immediate feedback with
instructional recommendations had higher levels of achievement than children whose teachers or
home visitors did not (Al Otaiba et al., 2011; Buzhardt, Greenwood, Walker, Anderson, et al.,
2011; Landry et al., 2009; Ysseldyke & Bolt, 2007). The use of technology to prompt the teacher
with recommended instructional strategies based on the data that teachers input into the system
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 143
was more prevalent with GOMs. It appeared to be easier to create decisions rules and program
technology when the tasks were the same across children.
Despite these promising findings, research also suggests the critical role of
implementation integrity—teachers using the technology and recommendations in the intended
way—in achieving satisfactory results. For example, in a random assignment study of the effects
of a technology-enhanced ongoing assessment and instructional management system—
Accelerated Math—on math instruction in elementary schools, Ysseldyke and Bolt (2007) found
teachers were using progress monitoring tools with less than half of students, despite a
recommendation to implement the program with all students in their classes. When the
researchers explored whether teachers chose to implement the program with certain types of
students, they found no systematic method teachers were using to exclude students. Teachers
also varied in their quality of implementation. In a follow-up study, the researchers noted that the
teachers who more successfully implemented ongoing assessment were in general more effective
teachers (Bolt et al., 2010). However, it is important to note that more effective teachers in this
study may have been more likely to successfully adopt instructional innovations, such as ongoing
assessment; the use of ongoing assessment may not have caused teachers to be more effective.
Supporting Teachers
Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and the resources available to support them are critical to the
successful implementation of ongoing assessment, but results from this literature review suggest
numerous barriers to successful use of ongoing assessment. Although teachers may recognize the
value of ongoing assessment and its use is mandated by Head Start, they do not consistently
collect ongoing assessment data nor do they use it for instruction and individualization. Teachers
face barriers to using data, including a lack of pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of
assessment and interpretation of data. Teachers report a desire for more training and professional
development on using ongoing assessment to individualize instruction, but limited research
exists to inform the approaches to training with the greatest promise for supporting teachers.
Teachers’ perceptions, use, and knowledge of ongoing assessment. Across
studies that reported on teachers’ perceptions of, experiences with, or knowledge of ongoing
assessment and using data to inform instruction, findings suggest that although practitioners may
recognize the value of ongoing assessment, they do not consistently collect ongoing assessment
data nor do they use it for instruction and individualization (Orosco & Klingner, 2010; Venn &
McCollum, 2002).
Barriers to teachers’ use of assessment data to inform instruction. The literature
pointed to two main barriers to using assessment data to inform instruction: (1) teachers’
knowledge of and skill in using assessment results to individualize instruction and (2) the breadth
and depth of teacher knowledge of the content area (Keilty, LaRocco, & Casell, 2009; Orosco &
Klingner, 2010; Roehrig et al., 2008). Across studies that asked teachers about their experiences
using ongoing assessment to inform instruction, teachers consistently cited the need for
additional training and support (see, for example, Roehrig et al., 2008; Kashima, Schleich,
Spradlin, & Indiana University, 2009). In particular, teachers wanted more professional
development and support around how to (1) administer universal screening and progress
144 AKERS ET AL.
monitoring assessments, (2) analyze data to make data-driven instructional decisions, and (3)
change the curriculum and instruction to focus on evidence-based practices.
Professional development to support ongoing assessment. Despite the need for
additional training and support, only 18 of the 173 studies reviewed described the training and
support provided to teachers implementing ongoing assessment (Al Otaiba, 2005; Bagnato, Suen,
Brickley, Smith-Jones, & Dettore, 2002; Ball & Trammell, 2011; Buzhardt et al., 2010;
Buzhardt, Walker, Greenwood, & Carta, 2011; Buzhardt, Walker, Greenwood, & Heitzrnan-
Powell, 2012; Fuchs et al., 1991; Gajus & Barnett, 2010; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008, 2012;
Greenwood, Buzhardt, Walker, Howard, & Anderson, 2011; Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Pretti-
Frontczak, 2008; Landry et al., 2006; Landry et al., 2009; Landry et al., 2011; Marcon, 2009;
Wasik et al., 2009; Zoll & Rosenquest, 2011). Fewer studies examined the approaches to
supporting teachers with the most promise for improving their ability to use ongoing assessment
for individualization. Of the studies that described the types of assistance offered to teachers to
support their use of ongoing assessment and using data to inform instruction, most offered initial
trainings, which ranged from online professional development opportunities to multiday
workshops, followed by ongoing one-on-one support from mentors or coaches (Gettinger &
Stoiber, 2008, 2012; Grisham-Brown et al., 2008; Wasik et al., 2009; Zoll & Rosenquest, 2011).
Although studies suggest that teachers can benefit from professional development on the
use of ongoing assessment for individualization, research on the types of professional
development that should be offered to teachers is not conclusive (Buzhardt, Greenwood, Walker,
Anderson, et al., 2011; Landry et al., 2009; Landry et al., 2011). Only one random-assignment
study examined the role of various professional development methods on teaching behavior and
children’s school-readiness (Landry et al., 2009). The study found that teachers who received
online professional development coupled with immediate, detailed feedback and mentoring
showed the greatest improvements in their teaching behavior and in children’s school-readiness
when compared to teachers who had coaching around classroom instructional interactions (not
specifically tied to data) and teachers who completed assessments on their own but received no
feedback from either live coaches or technology-generated tailored recommendations. However,
additional approaches of professional development and support in the use of assessment data to
inform instruction remain relatively unexplored in the literature.
DISCUSSION
The use of ongoing assessment in early childhood education has garnered increased attention
from educators, administrators, policymakers, and researchers (Buysse & Peisner-Feinberg,
2013; Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, 2013). This
literature review shows that the field is still in the early stages, and research on the
implementation and effectiveness of ongoing assessment is still growing.
The literature suggests that although teachers may recognize the value of ongoing
assessment and its use is mandated by Head Start, they do not consistently collect ongoing
assessment data nor do they use it for instruction and individualization. Studies reported that
teachers have indicated that they face a number of barriers that hinder their ability to interpret
data and use data for individualizing instruction. In particular, teachers report a greater need for
professional development about child development, pedagogical content, assessment practices,
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 145
and evidence-based instructional approaches. Teachers also may find the process of conducting
ongoing assessment overly burdensome or complicated, especially in the busiest or most under-
resourced centers.
Among the few studies that examined the effects of professional development on
teaching behaviors, comprehensive professional development seems to be more effective than no
professional development, and professional development appears to be more effective when it
includes technology-driven support with immediate, detailed feedback (Buzhardt, Greenwood,
Walker, Anderson, et al., 2011; Landry et al., 2009; Landry et al., 2011). The literature is clear,
however, that many teachers are not successfully implementing ongoing assessment for
individualization and instruction without the assistance of a technology-based system that
provides immediate feedback and recommends next steps for instruction. This suggests that
investing in that type of technology would yield greater benefits for children.
Although current studies provide valuable information on teachers’ use of ongoing
assessment for individualization, little is known about how critical each step in the process is to
high quality use of the data to inform instruction and individualize. In addition, little is known
about the key indicators of high quality implementation at each step in the process.
This review suggests we lack solid evidence regarding which ongoing assessment
activities best support individualization and enhance child outcomes. Limited information is
available about some of the activities involved in the process of using ongoing child assessment
data for instruction and individualization. Most studies focus on one or two of the activities,
leaving few examples that focus on the process in its entirety. Little is also known about the use
of ongoing assessment in domains other than language and literacy and, to a lesser extent, social
and emotional development and mathematics. Few causal studies examine the types of ongoing
support for teachers, particularly teachers working with children from birth to age 5, which may
lead to improvements in teacher knowledge, instructional quality, and child outcomes. A few
studies provide evidence of positive effects of ongoing assessment, but these studies typically
include technology-enhanced systems that offer immediate, tailored feedback around using data
to tailor instruction; therefore, it is not possible to isolate the effects of ongoing assessment
alone. These studies also typically examine the use of GOMs, which are not used as commonly
in early childhood as curriculum-embedded approaches.
Ultimately, this review points to a number of gaps in the knowledge base about ongoing
assessment for individualization that future research should address. In particular, additional
research is needed on the use of ongoing assessment with curriculum-embedded assessments and
in domains other than literacy and language. Although literacy is an important focus for the early
grades, there is increased attention on both social and emotional issues and other content areas in
the field of early childhood. It would be important to understand how assessment could be used
in a variety of areas to provide information that can be used to modify instruction. Further,
studies are needed to help the field better understand whether and how teachers use ongoing
child assessment to individualize instruction.
Although ongoing assessment is being used widely throughout Head Start, the current
literature suggests that teachers struggle to take the significant step from collecting data to using
it in classrooms. Specifically, teachers may lack the knowledge of child development,
pedagogical content, assessment practices, and evidence-based instructional approaches that they
need to use ongoing assessment to individualize instruction. Additional training and support may
be necessary for teachers to successfully implement this process. However, few studies have
closely examined all the activities involved in implementation to understand where in the process
146 AKERS ET AL.
teachers experience the greatest challenges. More information is needed about how to best
support teachers with training and professional development on using ongoing assessment to
individualize instruction. The most promising strategy thus far has been the use of technology
that provides immediate feedback and recommendations for teachers. It would be helpful for
teachers to understand what specific strategies can be implemented with children if they are
having problems in specific areas. Knowing how to identify the problem is important, but
teachers also need to understand what the data they collect means and how to try different,
research-based instructional approaches to ensure that all children have opportunities to learn.
Future research should also study—and explore how to address—other potential barriers to
teachers’ use of ongoing assessment, such as feeling overburdened with other work, not
understanding the utility of ongoing assessment data to their instruction, and not knowing how to
incorporate data into their curriculum and teaching practice in a way that addresses the needs of
all children in the classroom. Lastly, more research is needed to determine whether high-quality
implementation of ongoing assessment to inform individualization is linked to improved
instructional practices and, ultimately, improved child outcomes.
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation. Retrieved May 1, 2012, from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/advisory_com/index.html
Al Otaiba, S. (2005). Response to early literacy instruction: Practical issues for early childhood personnel
preparation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(3), 201–209.
Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., & Li, Z. (2011). Assessment data-informed
guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control
field trial. Elementary School Journal, 111(34), 535–560.
Amplify Education. “mClass: CIRCLE Early Childhood Assessment.” Available at
[http://www.amplify.com/assessment/mclass-circle#overview]. Accessed February 17, 2016.
Assessment Technology, Incorporated. “Galileo G3 Assessment Scales for Birth through 5 Years Alignment with
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework.” Tucson, AZ: Assessment Technology, Inc., 2015.
Bagnato, S. J., McLean, M., Macy, M., & Neisworth. J. Y. (2011). Identifying instructional targets for early
childhood via authentic assessment: Alignment of professional standards and practice-based evidence.
Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 243–253.
Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2010). LINKing authentic assessment and early childhood
intervention: Best measures for best practices. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Bagnato, S. J., Suen, H. K., Brickley, D., Smith-Jones, J., & Dettore, E. (2002). Child developmental impact of
Pittsburgh’s Early Childhood Initiative (ECI) in high-risk communities: First-phase authentic evaluation
research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(4), 559–580.
Ball, C., & Gettinger, M. (2009). Monitoring children’s growth in early literacy skills: Effects of feedback on
performance and classroom environments. Education & Treatment of Children, 32(2), 189–212.
Ball, C. R., & Trammell, B. A. (2011). Response-to-Intervention in high-risk preschools: Critical issues for
implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 502–512.
Barghaus, K. M., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2014). Validation of the Preschool Child Observation Record: Does It Pass the
Test for Use in Head Start? Early Education and Development, 25(8), 1118-1141.
Bolt, D. M., Ysseldyke, J., & Patterson, M. J. (2010). Students, teachers, and schools as sources of variability,
integrity, and sustainability in implementing progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 39(4), 612–
630.
Bricker, D., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Johnson, J. J., Straka, E. (2002). Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming
System for Infants and Children: Birth to Three Years, Second Edition. Baltimore, MD: Brookes
Publishing.
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 147
Burke, M. D., & Vannest, K. J. (2008). Behavioral-progress monitoring using the Electronic Daily Behavioral
Report Card (e-DBRC) System. Preventing School Failure, 52(3), 51–60.Buysse, V., & Peisner-Feinberg,
E. (2013). Response to Intervention: Conceptual foundations for the early childhood field. In V. Buysse &
E. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention in early childhood (pp. 3-23). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C. R., & Carta, J. J. (2011). A study of an online tool to support evidence-based practices
with infants and toddlers. NHSA Dialog, 14(3), 151–156.
Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D., Anderson, R., Howard, W., & Carta, J. J. (2011). Effects of web-based
support on Early Head Start home visitors’ use of evidence-based intervention decision making and growth
in children’s expressive communication. NHSA Dialog, 14(3), 121–146.
Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C., Walker, D., Carta, J. J., Terry, B., & Garrett, M. (2010). A web-based tool to support
data-based early intervention decision making. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(4), 201–
213.
Buzhardt, J., Walker, D., Greenwood, C. R., & Heitzrnan-Powell, L. (2012). Using technology to support progress
monitoring and data-based intervention decision making in early childhood: Is there an app for that? Focus
on Exceptional Children, 44(8), 1–18.
California Department of Education and Center for Child and Family Studies at WestEd. “Desired Results for
Children and Families.” Camarillo, CA: CDE, n.d. Available at
[http://desiredresults.us//resource_drdp.htm]. Accessed January 9, 2013.
California Department of Education and Center for Child and Family Studies at WestEd. “Desired Results for
Children and Families (2015).” Camarillo, CA: CDE, 2015.
Connor, C. M., Piasta, S.B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., . . . Morrison, F. J. (2009).
Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of Child x Instruction interactions on first graders’
literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100.
DeBaryshe, B. D., Gorecki, D. M., & Mishima-Young, L. (2009). Differentiated instruction to support high-risk
preschool learners. NHSA Dialog,12(3), 227–244.
Dichtelmiller, M. L., J. R. Jablon, D. B. Marsden, and S. J. Meisels. The Work Sampling System: Preschool Through
Third Grade Omnibus Guidelines. 4th edition. New York: Pearson Education, 2001.
Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, National Association for the Education of
Young Children, & National Head Start Association. (2013). Frameworks for Response to Intervention in
early childhood: Description and implications. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/RTI%20in%20Early%20Childhood.pdf.
Feld, Jason K. “Galileo Pre-K Online: Aligned with the Head Start Child Development and Learning Framework
and the Office of Head Start Monitoring Protocol.” Tucson, AZ: Assessment Technology, Inc., 2011.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models.
Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin. P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and
evaluation on student achievement, pedagogy, and student awareness of learning. American Educational
Research Journal, 21(2), 449–460.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1994). Strengthening the connection between assessment and instructional
planning with expert systems. Exceptional Children, 61(2), 138–146.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and
consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American
Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617–641.
Gajus, J., & Barnett, D. Classwide consultation in preschools: A case study of comprehensive supports. (2010).
Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 871–886.
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students
struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE
2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (2008). Applying a Response-to-Intervention model for early literacy development
in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4),198–213.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K C. (2012). Curriculum-based early literacy assessment and differentiated instruction
with high-risk preschoolers. Reading Psychology, 33(1), 11–46.
148 AKERS ET AL.
Goertz, M., Nabors Oláh, L., & Riggan, M. (2009). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in
classroom instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2001). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in
school psychology IV, vol. 1 (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention
model of decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(4), 326–336.
Greenwood, C. R., Buzhardt, J., Walker, D., Howard, W. J., & Anderson, R. (2011). Program-level influences on
the measurement of early communication for infants and toddlers in Early Head Start. Journal of Early
Intervention, 33(2), 110–134.
Greenwood, Charles R., Tracy Bradfield, Ruth Kaminski, Maura Linas, Judith J. Carta, and Donna Nylander. “The
Response to Intervention (RTI) Approach in Early Childhood.” Focus on Exceptional Children, vol. 43, no. 9,
2011b, pp. 1–22.
Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D., Carta, J. J., & Higgins, S. (2006). Developing a general outcome measure of growth
in the cognitive abilities of children 1 to 4 years old: The Early Problem-Solving Indicator. School
Psychology Review, 35(4), 535–551.
Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R. A., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2008). Preparing Head Start personnel to use a
curriculum-based assessment: An innovative practice in the “Age of Accountability.” Journal of Early
Intervention, 30(4), 271–281.
Halle, T., Zaslow, M., Wessel, J., Moodie, S., and Darling-Churchill, K. (2011). Understanding and Choosing
Assessments and Developmental Screeners for Young Children: Profiles of Selected Measures.
Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. (2009). Using student
achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
Hojnoski, R. L., & Missall, K. N. (2007). Monitoring preschoolers’ language and early literacy growth and
development. Young Exceptional Children,10(3), 17–27.
Hosp, J. L., & Ardoin, S. P. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention,
33(2), 2008, 69–77.
Hulsey, Lara, Nikki Aikens, Yange Xue, Louisa Tarullo, and Jerry West. “Data Tables for FACES 2006: A Year in
Head Start Report.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, October 2010.
Jarrett, M. H., Browne, B. C., & Wallin, C. M. (2006). Using portfolio assessment to document developmental
progress of infants and toddlers. Young Exceptional Children, 10(1), 22–32.
Jenkins, J. R., J. J. Graff, and D. L. Miglioretti. “Estimating Reading Growth Using Intermittent CBM Progress
Monitoring.” Exceptional Children, vol. 75, 2009, pp. 151–163.
Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., Spradlin, T. & and Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
(2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum, assessment and
progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Special report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University, CEEP.
Keilty, B., LaRocco, D. J., & Casell, F. B. (2009). Early interventionists’ reports of authentic assessment methods
through focus group research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(4), 244–256.
Lambert, R. G., Kim, D., Taylor, H. & McGee, J. R. (2010). Technical manual for the Teaching Strategies GOLD
assessment system (CEMETR-2010-06).
Lambert, R., Rowland, B., Taylor, H., & Wheeler, C. (2010). Resource manual for administrators and principals
supervising and evaluating teachers of young children. Technical report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction.
Landry, S. H., Anthony, J. L., Swank, P. R., & Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness of comprehensive
professional development for teachers of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2),
448–465.
Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Anthony, J. L., & Assel, M. A. (2011). An experimental study evaluating professional
development activities within a state-funded pre-kindergarten program. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(8), 971–1010.
TEACHERS’ USE OF ONGOING CHILD ASSESSMENT 149
Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Smith, K. E., Assel, M. A., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2006). Enhancing early literacy skills
for preschool children: Bringing a professional development model to scale. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39(4), 306–324.
Marcon, R. A. (2009). Enhancing language and early literacy development of lowest performing preschoolers: Yes
we can! NHSA Dialog, 12(3), 276–291.
McConnell, S. R., & Greenwood, C. R. (2013). General outcome measures in early childhood and individual growth
and development indicators. In V. Buysse & E. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to
intervention in early childhood. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
McConnell, S. R., & Missall, K. N. (2008). Best practices in monitoring progress for preschool children. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (5th ed., pp. 561-573). Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Meisels, S.J., Jablon, J.R., Marsden, D.B., Dichtelmiller, M.L., & Dorfman, A.B. (2013). The Work Sampling
System (5th edition). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson/Psychological Corp.
Meisels, S. J., Atkins-Burnett, S., Xue, Y., Bickel, D. D., Son, S.-H., & Nicholson, J. (2003). Creating a system of
accountability: The impact of instructional assessment on elementary children’s achievement test scores.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(9).
Meisels, S. J., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., Xue, Y., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Trusting teachers’ judgments: A
validity study of a curriculum-embedded performance assessment in kindergarten–grade 3. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 73-95.
Meisels, S. J., Xue, Y., & Shamblott, M. (2008). Assessing language, literacy, and mathematics skills with Work
Sampling for Head Start. Early Education and Development, 19(6), 963–981.
Missall, K. N., J. J. Carta, S. R. McConnell, D. Walker, and C. R. Greenwood. “Using Individual Growth and
Development Indicators to Measure Early Language and Literacy.” Infants & Young Children: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices, vol. 21, no. 3, 2008, pp. 241–253.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). NAEYC early childhood program standards.
Washington, DC: NAEYC. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/Position%20Statement%20EC%20Standards.pdf.
National Association for the Education of Young Children, Division for Early Childhood of the Council for
Exceptional Children, and National Head Start Association. (2013). “Frameworks for Response to
Intervention in Early Childhood Education: Description and Implications.” Available at
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/RTI%20in%20Early%20Childhood.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2016.
National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning. (2012). Ongoing child assessment: Overview. Retrieved July 30,
2012, from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/docs/Ongoing-
Assessment_TeacherTips.pdf.
Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: Referring
into RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–288.
Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Buysse, V. (2013). The role of assessment within Response to Intervention in early
education. In V. Buysse & E. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention in early
childhood (pp. 121-142). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., Bagnato, S., Macy, M., & Sexton, D. B. (2011). Data-driven decision making to plan programs
and promote performance: Applying best professional practice standards. In S. Eidelman, L. A. Kaczmarek,
& S. P. Maude (Eds.), Early childhood intervention: Shaping the future for children with special needs and
their families. Vol. 2 (pp. 55 – 80). New York: Praeger.
Roehrig, A. D., Duggar, S. W., Moats, L., Glover, M., & Mincey, B. (2008). When teachers work to use progress
monitoring data to inform literacy instruction: Identifying potential supports and challenges. Remedial and
Special Education, 29(6), 364–382.
Roseth, Cary, J., Kristen Missall, and Scott McConnell. “Early Literacy Individual Growth and Development
Indicators (EL-IGDIs): Growth Trajectories Using a Large, Internet-Based Sample.” Journal of School
Psychology, vol. 50, no. 4, 2012, pp. 483–501
Sandall, S., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. J. (2000). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early
childhood special education. Denver, CO: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional
Children, 2000.
150 AKERS ET AL.
Snow, C.E., & Van Hemel, S.B. (Eds.). (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press, National Research Council, Committee on Developmental Outcomes and
Assessments for Young Children, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Board on Testing and
Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, 337. Retrieved August 20, 2013,
from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12446&page=R1
Teaching Strategies, Inc. “The Creative Curriculum® Developmental Continuum for Ages 3–5.” Washington, DC:
Teaching Strategies, Inc., 2001.
Teaching Strategies, Inc. “The Creative Curriculum® Developmental Continuum for Infants, Toddlers, & Twos.”
Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc., 2006.
Teaching Strategies, Inc. “Teaching Strategies: GOLD®.” Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc., 2011.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2015). The Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five. Washington, DC: Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/sr/approach/pdf/ohs-framework.pdf.
Venn, M. L., & McCollum, J. (2002). Exploring the long- and short-term planning practices of Head Start teachers
for children with and without disabilities. Journal of Special Education 35(4), 211–223.
Vogel, Cheri A., Kimberly Boller, Yange Xue, Randall Blair, Nikki Aikens, Andrew Burwick, Yevgeny Shrago,
Barbara Lepidus Carlson, Laura Kalb, Linda Mendenko, Judy Cannon, Sean Harrington, and Jillian Stein.
“Learning As We Go: A First Snapshot of Early Head Start Programs, Staff, Families, and Children.” OPRE
Report no. 2011-7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, February 2011.
Vort Corporation. Hawaii Early Learning Profile® (HELP® 0–3). Palo Alto, CA: Vort Corporation, 2006. Vort
Corporation. Hawaii Early Learning Profile® (HELP® 3–6), Second edition. Palo Alto, CA: Vort
Corporation, 2010.
Walker, D., Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Buzhardt, J. (2008). The Use of Individual Growth and Developmental
Indicators for Progress Monitoring and Intervention Decision Making in Early Education. Exceptionality,
16, 1, 33-47.
Wasik, B. A., Hindman, A. H., & Jusczyk, A. M. (2009). Using curriculum-specific progress monitoring to assess
Head Start children’s vocabulary development. NHSA Dialog, 12(3), 257–275.Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M.
(2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School
Psychology Review, 36(3), 453–467.
Zoll, S. M., & Rosenquest, B. (2011). Sustainable practices in mentoring: Tools to support child outcomes and a
mentoring protocol in early language and literacy.” NHSA Dialog, 14(4), 213–228.