ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to assess the measurement invariance of items from the Emotional and Behavioral Screener (EBS) across racial and ethnic groups and assess the impact of differential item functioning (DIF) on test scores from the EBS. Participants were 4,856 first-grade students (49% female) who were diverse with regard to race and ethnicity (45% African American, 41% Hispanic/Latino, and 14% Caucasian). Classroom teachers rated each student on the EBS during the fall semester screening window. Item response theory modeling was combined with ordinal regression to investigate the presence and impact of differential item functioning across 3 race and ethnicity groups. The findings suggest that items from the EBS exhibit small to negligible levels of DIF, and the limited DIF that was present does not significantly impact overall scores. Researchers and practitioners can have confidence that scores from the EBS are relatively unaffected by test bias when measuring the emotional and behavioral risk of young students from African American, Hispanic/Latino, or Caucasian backgrounds. (PsycINFO Database Record
Subject(s)
Behavior Rating Scale/standards , Behavioral Symptoms/diagnosis , Black or African American , Child Behavior/physiology , Emotions/physiology , Hispanic or Latino , Students , White People , Black or African American/statistics & numerical data , Behavior Rating Scale/statistics & numerical data , Child , Female , Florida , Hispanic or Latino/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Students/statistics & numerical data , White People/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
In light of the steady rise in the prevalence of students with autism, this study examined the definition of autism published by state education agencies (SEAs), as well as SEA-indicated evaluation procedures for determining student qualification for autism. We compared components of each SEA definition to aspects of autism from two authoritative sources: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA-2004). We also compared SEA-indicated evaluation procedures across SEAs to evaluation procedures noted in IDEA-2004. Results indicated that many more SEA definitions incorporate IDEA-2004 features than DSM-IV-TR features. However, despite similar foundations, SEA definitions of autism displayed considerable variability. Evaluation procedures were found to vary even more across SEAs. Moreover, within any particular SEA there often was little concordance between the definition (what autism is) and evaluation procedures (how autism is recognized). Recommendations for state and federal policy changes are discussed.
