Introduction

This competency within the GACE Special Education General Curriculum (P-12) exam, Test 735, addresses Testlet 407, Objective 1: Assessment Instruments and Procedures. Special educators in Georgia must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the tools and processes used to evaluate students who may have disabilities, determine eligibility for special education services, and design individualized instructional programs. Assessment is the backbone of every decision in special education — from initial identification through progress monitoring and program evaluation — and this study guide prepares you for the breadth and depth of assessment knowledge required on the exam.

This guide is organized into eight major sections. First, you will study the types of assessment instruments, including formal and informal tools, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures, and standardized and authentic assessments. Second, you will explore assessment procedures for evaluating student strengths and needs across cognitive, academic, behavioral, social, and functional domains. Third, you will examine assessment accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities. Fourth, you will consider cultural and linguistic factors that affect fair assessment. Fifth, you will learn about curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement. Sixth, you will review the assessment components embedded within Response to Intervention and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support frameworks. Seventh, you will study ecological and environmental assessments. Eighth, you will explore portfolio assessment and performance-based assessment approaches.

Types of Assessment Instruments

Special educators must be fluent in a wide range of assessment instruments. Each type of assessment serves a different purpose, and effective evaluation requires selecting the right tool for the right question. The GACE exam expects you to understand the features, advantages, limitations, and appropriate uses of each type.

Formal vs. Informal Assessments

Assessment instruments are broadly categorized as formal or informal, depending on the degree of standardization and the conditions under which they are administered.

Formal assessments are published instruments with standardized administration and scoring procedures. They produce quantifiable results — such as standard scores, percentile ranks, age equivalents, or grade equivalents — that allow comparison to a normative group or a predetermined criterion. Examples include intelligence tests (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Stanford-Binet), achievement batteries (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Wechsler Individual Achievement Test), and adaptive behavior scales (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Adaptive Behavior Assessment System). Formal assessments provide data that are essential for eligibility determination, but they capture only a snapshot of performance under specific conditions.
Informal assessments are teacher-developed or commercially available tools that do not require standardized administration. They are flexible, can be administered frequently, and provide information about how a student performs in authentic instructional contexts. Examples include teacher-made tests, curriculum-based measures, observation checklists, work samples, running records, error analyses, interviews, and anecdotal records. Informal assessments are invaluable for instructional planning and ongoing progress monitoring because they reveal patterns that standardized tests may miss.

Teaching Application: Use formal assessments when you need standardized, comparable data — such as during initial evaluations and reevaluations. Use informal assessments on an ongoing basis to guide daily instructional decisions, identify skill gaps, and monitor response to intervention. A comprehensive evaluation always includes both formal and informal measures to provide a complete picture of the student.

Norm-Referenced vs. Criterion-Referenced Assessments

Understanding the distinction between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessments is essential for interpreting results and selecting appropriate tools.

Feature	Norm-Referenced	Criterion-Referenced
Purpose	Compare a student's performance to a representative sample of same-age or same-grade peers	Determine whether a student has mastered specific skills or content standards
Scores reported	Standard scores, percentile ranks, stanines, age/grade equivalents	Percentage correct, pass/fail, proficiency levels, mastery indicators
Item selection	Items chosen to maximize score variability and discriminate among test takers	Items chosen to represent a defined domain of skills or knowledge
Best used for	Eligibility decisions, identification of relative strengths and weaknesses, placement	Instructional planning, measuring mastery of IEP objectives, curriculum alignment
Examples	Woodcock-Johnson IV, WISC-V, KeyMath-3	Brigance Inventories, Georgia Milestones (state assessment), teacher-made mastery tests

Key point: Norm-referenced scores tell you where a student stands relative to peers but do not tell you what the student can or cannot do. Criterion-referenced measures tell you what the student has mastered but do not indicate how that performance compares to peers. Effective assessment uses both types to answer different questions.

Standardized Assessments

A standardized assessment is any test that is administered and scored under uniform, predetermined conditions. Standardization ensures that results are reliable and valid for the intended purpose. Both norm-referenced and some criterion-referenced tests can be standardized.

Administration protocols: Standardized tests include detailed manuals specifying exact instructions, time limits, materials, and permissible interactions between the examiner and the student. Deviating from these protocols can invalidate the results.
Reliability: Standardized instruments are developed with established reliability — the consistency of scores across administrations, examiners, and items. Key types include test-retest reliability (stability over time), inter-rater reliability (consistency across scorers), and internal consistency (coherence among items).
Validity: Validity refers to the degree to which a test measures what it claims to measure. Content validity ensures the items sample the intended domain. Criterion-related validity assesses whether scores predict or correlate with external outcomes. Construct validity evaluates whether the test measures the theoretical concept it targets.
Norming considerations: The quality of a norm-referenced test depends on its normative sample. Examiners must verify that the norming group is representative of the student being tested in terms of age, grade, geographic region, ethnicity, language background, and socioeconomic status. Using norms that do not match the student's characteristics can produce misleading results.

Teaching Application: When selecting a standardized assessment, verify that the instrument has been validated for the specific purpose you intend (screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring) and for the population you are assessing. Read the technical manual to understand the test's reliability coefficients, validity evidence, and normative sample composition. Never use a single standardized test score as the sole basis for high-stakes decisions such as eligibility determination or placement.

Authentic and Alternative Assessments

Authentic assessment evaluates students' abilities by asking them to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of knowledge and skills. Unlike traditional tests that rely on selected responses (multiple choice, true/false), authentic assessments require students to construct responses, create products, or demonstrate skills in context.

Performance-based tasks: Students complete activities that mirror real-life challenges — such as writing a persuasive letter, conducting a science experiment, solving a multi-step math problem with manipulatives, or navigating a community errand. These tasks reveal how students apply skills in integrated, functional contexts.
Portfolio assessment: Students collect samples of their work over time, demonstrating growth, effort, and achievement. Portfolios can include writing samples, artwork, project reports, self-reflections, and other artifacts selected by the student and teacher together.
Rubrics: Authentic assessments are typically scored using rubrics that define performance criteria at multiple levels (exemplary, proficient, developing, beginning). Rubrics make expectations transparent and support both self-assessment and consistent grading.
Advantages for students with disabilities: Authentic assessments can reduce the reliance on reading and writing skills that may not reflect a student's true understanding. They allow for multiple modes of expression (oral, visual, kinesthetic) and can incorporate accommodations naturally.

Teaching Application: Incorporate authentic assessments into your classroom routine to supplement standardized measures. Design tasks that are aligned with IEP goals and allow students to demonstrate competence in ways that match their strengths. Use rubrics to provide specific, constructive feedback that guides further learning.

Assessment Procedures Across Developmental Domains

Comprehensive evaluation of a student suspected of having a disability must address all areas of concern. IDEA mandates that assessments be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of a student's special education and related service needs. The following domains represent the primary areas that special educators assess.

Cognitive Assessment

Cognitive assessment evaluates a student's intellectual functioning, including reasoning, problem-solving, memory, processing speed, and the ability to learn new information. Cognitive measures are a central component of eligibility evaluations for intellectual disability and specific learning disabilities.

Common instruments: The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V), the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5), the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC-II), and the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS2) are among the most widely used cognitive assessments.
Full-scale IQ vs. composite scores: Modern cognitive batteries yield both an overall composite score (Full Scale IQ) and index scores for specific cognitive abilities such as verbal comprehension, visual-spatial reasoning, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. Examining the pattern of index scores is essential for identifying specific cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
Interpretation cautions: A single IQ score does not capture the complexity of a student's cognitive profile. Significant scatter among index scores (large differences between high and low areas) can make the full-scale score misleading. Additionally, cultural and linguistic factors, test anxiety, and attention difficulties can depress scores and must be considered during interpretation.

Teaching Application: Use cognitive assessment data to understand how a student processes information, not simply to obtain a classification label. If a student demonstrates strong visual-spatial reasoning but weak verbal comprehension, design instruction that leverages visual supports while systematically building language skills. Share cognitive profiles with general education teachers so they can differentiate instruction appropriately.

Academic Assessment

Academic assessment measures a student's achievement in core content areas including reading, written expression, and mathematics. Academic assessments are used for screening, eligibility determination, instructional planning, and progress monitoring.

Comprehensive achievement batteries: The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement, the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-4), and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-3) provide broad coverage of academic skills with norm-referenced scores for each area.
Diagnostic reading assessments: Tools such as the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP-2), the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5), and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2) evaluate specific reading subskills including phonological awareness, decoding, fluency, and comprehension.
Diagnostic math assessments: The KeyMath-3 and the Test of Mathematical Abilities (TOMA-3) assess computation, concepts, and problem-solving at a granular level to pinpoint specific areas of difficulty.
Written expression assessments: The Test of Written Language (TOWL-4) and the Test of Written Expression (TOWE) evaluate spelling, grammar, sentence construction, and composition skills.
Curriculum-based measures (CBMs): Brief, standardized probes administered frequently to track academic growth over time. CBMs in reading (oral reading fluency passages), math (computation probes), and writing (writing fluency prompts) are widely used for progress monitoring within RTI and IEP frameworks.

Teaching Application: Pair comprehensive achievement tests with diagnostic measures and curriculum-based data to build a complete academic profile. Use broad scores to identify areas of concern, diagnostic tools to pinpoint the specific nature of the deficit, and CBMs to monitor the effectiveness of the intervention you implement.

Behavioral and Social-Emotional Assessment

Behavioral and social-emotional assessment evaluates a student's emotional functioning, social skills, adaptive behavior, and the environmental factors that influence behavior. These assessments are critical for students who may qualify under the Emotional Disturbance or Autism Spectrum Disorder categories and for designing behavioral intervention plans.

Behavior rating scales: Standardized scales such as the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-3), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and the Conners Rating Scales collect perspectives from teachers, parents, and the student. They yield scores across dimensions such as aggression, anxiety, depression, withdrawal, attention problems, hyperactivity, and social skills.
Functional behavior assessment (FBA): An FBA is a systematic process for identifying the environmental triggers (antecedents) and consequences that maintain a problem behavior. The FBA uses direct observation, interviews, and data collection to determine the function of the behavior — which may be to obtain attention, escape a demand, access a tangible item, or meet a sensory need. The results guide the development of a behavior intervention plan (BIP) that teaches a replacement behavior serving the same function.
Social skills assessment: Instruments such as the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) and the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) evaluate a student's social competence, communication skills, and the quality of social interactions.
Adaptive behavior assessment: The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Vineland-3) and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS-3) measure practical skills in communication, daily living, socialization, and motor domains. Adaptive behavior assessment is required for identifying intellectual disability.
Direct observation: Systematic observation in natural settings provides data on the frequency, duration, intensity, and context of target behaviors. Observation methods include event recording (frequency counts), duration recording (how long a behavior lasts), interval recording (whether a behavior occurs during specified time intervals), and latency recording (time between a prompt and the behavioral response).

Teaching Application: Gather behavioral data from multiple informants (teachers, parents, the student) across multiple settings (classroom, lunchroom, unstructured time) to ensure a comprehensive understanding. Conduct FBAs before designing behavior interventions — interventions that do not address the function of a behavior are unlikely to be effective. Use direct observation data to set measurable behavioral goals for the IEP.

Functional and Life Skills Assessment

Functional assessment in this context refers to evaluating a student's ability to perform practical, everyday tasks that are necessary for independence and community participation. This is distinct from functional behavior assessment (which focuses on the purpose of problem behaviors). Functional and life skills assessment is particularly important for students with intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities, or significant developmental delays.

Domains assessed: Functional assessments cover self-care (dressing, hygiene, feeding), domestic skills (cooking, cleaning, laundry), community navigation (using transportation, shopping, safety awareness), vocational readiness (following directions, task completion, punctuality), and leisure/recreation skills.
Assessment methods: Task analysis checklists, ecological inventories (observations in natural environments), adaptive behavior scales, student and family interviews, and situational assessments in community settings are commonly used.
Transition assessment: For students aged 16 and older (and often beginning earlier), transition assessments evaluate interests, preferences, strengths, and needs related to postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. Tools include interest inventories, aptitude tests, situational assessments, and self-determination scales.

Teaching Application: Conduct functional assessments in the actual environments where the student needs to perform the skill (the school cafeteria, a grocery store, a workplace) rather than relying solely on contrived test conditions. Use task analysis to break complex routines into discrete steps and assess which steps the student can perform independently, with a prompt, or not at all. Let assessment results drive the development of functional IEP goals tied to real-world outcomes.

Assessment Accommodations and Modifications

Students with disabilities have a legal right to assessment accommodations that ensure fair and accurate measurement of their knowledge and skills. Understanding the difference between accommodations and modifications — and knowing how to select appropriate supports — is fundamental to ethical assessment practice.

Accommodations vs. Modifications

The terms accommodation and modification are sometimes used interchangeably in casual conversation, but they have distinct meanings in special education assessment.

Feature	Accommodation	Modification
Definition	A change in how the test is administered or how the student responds, without altering what is being measured	A change in the content, expectations, or standards being assessed
Effect on construct	Does not change the construct measured; the score remains valid for its intended purpose	Changes the construct measured; the score may not be comparable to scores from students without modifications
Examples	Extended time, large print, separate testing room, read-aloud (for non-reading tests), scribe, assistive technology	Reduced number of answer options, simplified reading level on a reading comprehension test, shortened test, alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards
Impact on standardized scores	Standard scores remain interpretable when appropriate accommodations are used	Standard scores may not be valid or comparable; results should be interpreted with caution

Key principle: Accommodations remove barriers that are unrelated to the skill being tested, allowing the student to demonstrate true ability. Modifications change what is being measured and should be used only when the student requires an alternate assessment approach.

Categories of Assessment Accommodations

Assessment accommodations are typically organized into four categories:

Presentation accommodations: Changes in how test content is presented to the student. Examples include large print, Braille, audio recordings of test items, sign language interpretation, color overlays, reduced number of items per page, and highlighting of key words. These accommodations help students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, or reading disabilities access test content.
Response accommodations: Changes in how the student provides answers. Examples include dictating responses to a scribe, using a word processor, pointing to answers, using a communication device, marking directly in the test booklet instead of a separate answer sheet, and using graph paper for math computation. These support students with fine motor difficulties, written expression challenges, or communication impairments.
Setting accommodations: Changes in the testing environment. Examples include testing in a separate, quiet room; preferential seating near the examiner; use of study carrels to reduce visual distractions; special lighting; and adaptive furniture. These benefit students with attention difficulties, anxiety, sensory sensitivities, or behavioral needs.
Timing and scheduling accommodations: Changes in when or how long the student takes the test. Examples include extended time (typically time-and-a-half or double time), frequent breaks, testing over multiple sessions, and administration at the student's optimal time of day. These support students with processing speed deficits, attention challenges, fatigue due to medical conditions, or anxiety.

Teaching Application: Select accommodations that match the student's documented needs as specified in the IEP or Section 504 plan. The accommodations used during assessment should be the same ones the student uses routinely during instruction — introducing an unfamiliar accommodation during a high-stakes test can be counterproductive. Document all accommodations provided and note any observations about how they affected the student's performance.

Cultural and Linguistic Considerations in Assessment

Fair assessment requires awareness of how cultural background, language proficiency, and socioeconomic factors can influence test performance. Misinterpreting culturally or linguistically based differences as disabilities leads to disproportionate identification of students from minority backgrounds — a problem that has been well documented in special education and that Georgia educators must actively work to prevent.

Sources of Bias in Assessment

Linguistic bias: Assessments developed and normed in English may not accurately measure the abilities of students who are English learners (ELs). Vocabulary-heavy subtests, culturally specific idioms, and syntax that differs from the student's home language can depress scores in ways that reflect language differences rather than cognitive or academic deficits.
Cultural bias: Test items may assume knowledge, experiences, or values that are specific to the dominant culture. A reading comprehension passage about skiing, for example, may disadvantage students from regions or backgrounds where skiing is unfamiliar — not because they lack comprehension skills, but because they lack the background knowledge assumed by the item.
Norming sample representation: If the normative sample for a standardized test does not include adequate representation of the student's cultural or linguistic group, comparisons to that norm may be misleading. Examiners should review the technical manual to determine whether the norming sample is representative.
Examiner bias: The expectations, assumptions, and cultural competence of the person administering the assessment can influence the testing interaction, the interpretation of ambiguous responses, and the conclusions drawn from the data.

Best Practices for Culturally Responsive Assessment

Assess in the student's dominant language: When possible, administer assessments in the language the student uses most proficiently. If a bilingual assessment is not available, use an interpreter who is trained in test administration protocols and understands the ethical constraints of the examiner role.
Use nonverbal or reduced-language measures: Instruments such as the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT-2) or the Leiter International Performance Scale (Leiter-3) minimize the impact of language proficiency on cognitive assessment.
Gather multiple data sources: Supplement standardized test scores with classroom observations, work samples, teacher and parent interviews, and curriculum-based measures. Triangulating data reduces reliance on any single instrument that may carry bias.
Consider the student's educational history: Evaluate whether the student has had access to consistent, high-quality instruction. Gaps in schooling, frequent moves, or limited formal education in the home country can affect performance in ways unrelated to disability.
Distinguish between language difference and language disorder: A student who is an English learner may demonstrate language patterns that look like a language disorder in English but are typical of their home language. Collaboration with a bilingual speech-language pathologist can help determine whether errors reflect a true disorder present in both languages or a normal developmental pattern of second-language acquisition.
Apply IDEA's nondiscriminatory assessment requirements: Federal law mandates that assessments must be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory. Materials must be provided in the student's native language or mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible, and no single procedure may be used as the sole criterion for determining eligibility.

Teaching Application: Before referring a student from a culturally or linguistically diverse background for special education evaluation, ensure that you have documented the interventions attempted, consulted with English learner specialists, and considered all alternative explanations for the student's academic difficulties. During the evaluation, select instruments with the strongest validity evidence for the student's population and interpret results within the context of the student's full cultural and linguistic background.

Curriculum-Based Assessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement

Curriculum-based approaches tie assessment directly to the instructional curriculum, making them highly relevant for planning and monitoring instruction. While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, curriculum-based assessment (CBA) and curriculum-based measurement (CBM) have distinct characteristics.

Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA)

Curriculum-based assessment is a broad term for any assessment method that uses material drawn directly from the curriculum being taught. CBA focuses on mastery of specific instructional content and helps teachers determine whether students have learned what was taught.

Content alignment: CBA items come directly from the lessons, units, or standards currently being addressed in instruction. This tight alignment ensures that assessment results are immediately relevant to teaching decisions.
Mastery criteria: Teachers set performance benchmarks (for example, 80% accuracy on a computation probe) that indicate when a student has mastered a skill and is ready to move on, or when reteaching is needed.
Flexibility: CBA can take many forms — teacher-made quizzes, chapter tests, skill checklists, oral questioning, or performance tasks. The key characteristic is direct connection to the current curriculum rather than to external norms.
Instructional decision making: Results are used to adjust pacing, grouping, and instructional methods. If most students fail a particular item set, the teacher knows to reteach that content. If a student consistently exceeds mastery criteria, instruction can be accelerated.

Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)

Curriculum-based measurement is a specific, standardized form of CBA developed by Stanley Deno and colleagues. CBM uses brief, timed probes administered repeatedly over time to track student growth in foundational academic skills.

Standardized probes: CBM probes are brief (typically one to three minutes), scripted, and administered under consistent conditions so that scores can be compared across time points. Common CBM types include oral reading fluency (ORF), maze passages (reading comprehension), math computation probes, spelling probes, and written expression prompts.
Frequent administration: CBMs are designed to be administered weekly or biweekly, generating a time-series data set that reveals the student's trajectory of growth. This frequency allows educators to detect problems early and make timely instructional adjustments.
Graphing and trend analysis: CBM data are plotted on graphs with a goal line (representing the expected rate of growth) and a trend line (representing the student's actual rate of growth). When the trend line falls below the goal line over several data points, the educator knows to change the intervention. When the trend line meets or exceeds the goal line, the current approach is working.
Technical adequacy: CBM probes have been extensively researched and demonstrate strong reliability and validity as indicators of overall academic competence in their respective domains. ORF scores, for example, are highly predictive of general reading achievement.
Dual role in RTI and IEP monitoring: CBM serves as both a universal screening tool (administered to all students to identify those at risk) and a progress monitoring tool (administered to individual students receiving intervention to evaluate response).

Feature	CBA (General)	CBM (Specific)
Standardization	Variable; can be teacher-created	Highly standardized probes with scripted administration
Frequency	As needed (after units, lessons)	Weekly or biweekly, repeated over time
Primary purpose	Mastery of specific curriculum content	Rate of growth in foundational skills over time
Data display	Mastery checklists, percentage scores	Time-series graphs with goal and trend lines
Research base	Varies by implementation	Extensive; strong reliability and criterion validity

Teaching Application: Use CBA to determine whether students have mastered instructional content and to plan next steps in the curriculum. Use CBM to monitor the trajectory of growth over time, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and make data-based decisions about whether to continue, intensify, or change an instructional approach. Both are essential tools in the special educator's assessment toolkit.

Assessment Within Response to Intervention and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) are frameworks that use assessment data at every stage to match students with increasingly intensive levels of instruction and intervention. Georgia uses the MTSS framework, which encompasses both academic and behavioral supports. Understanding the assessment components of each tier is essential for the GACE exam.

Tier 1: Universal Screening

At Tier 1, all students receive high-quality, evidence-based core instruction, and all students are assessed through universal screening to identify those who may be at risk for academic or behavioral difficulties.

Screening schedule: Universal screeners are typically administered three times per year — fall, winter, and spring — to establish benchmarks and monitor growth across the entire student body.
Screening tools: Common screeners include DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills), AIMSweb, easyCBM, and state-adopted screening measures. These tools are brief, reliable, and designed to identify students who fall below grade-level expectations.
Decision rules: Students who score below established cut points on the screener are flagged for further assessment and may be moved to Tier 2 intervention. Cut points are typically set at the 25th percentile or below, though schools may adjust based on local data.
Benchmark data: Screening data also serve as benchmarks for evaluating the effectiveness of Tier 1 core instruction. If more than 20% of students in a classroom fall below the benchmark, this suggests that the core instruction itself may need improvement.

Tier 2: Targeted Intervention and Progress Monitoring

Students identified through universal screening receive Tier 2 targeted interventions — typically delivered in small groups (three to five students) for 20 to 30 minutes several times per week, in addition to Tier 1 core instruction.

Diagnostic assessment: Before beginning Tier 2 intervention, educators may administer diagnostic measures to pinpoint the specific skill deficit (for example, identifying which phonemic awareness subskills a struggling reader lacks).
Progress monitoring frequency: At Tier 2, progress is monitored at least biweekly (every two weeks) using CBM probes. This frequency allows educators to detect trends and make data-based decisions within a reasonable timeframe, typically six to eight weeks.
Decision making: After the intervention period, the team examines progress monitoring data. Students who have reached grade-level benchmarks may return to Tier 1 only. Students who are making adequate progress but have not yet reached the benchmark may continue at Tier 2. Students who are not responding to Tier 2 intervention are considered for Tier 3.

Tier 3: Intensive Intervention and Evaluation

Tier 3 provides the most intensive level of intervention, typically delivered individually or in very small groups (one to two students) with increased duration and frequency.

Intensified progress monitoring: At Tier 3, progress is monitored weekly using CBM probes. The increased frequency provides more data points for trend analysis and faster detection of response or non-response.
Comprehensive evaluation: Students who do not respond adequately to Tier 3 intervention may be referred for a comprehensive special education evaluation. The RTI/MTSS data collected across tiers serve as valuable evidence in the evaluation process, documenting the student's response to evidence-based interventions of increasing intensity.
Dual-discrepancy model: In an RTI-based identification model, a student's inadequate response is defined by a dual discrepancy — their performance level is significantly below that of peers AND their rate of growth is significantly below what is expected even with intensive intervention. Both criteria must be met.

Teaching Application: Maintain detailed records of all interventions implemented at each tier, including the specific programs used, the frequency and duration of intervention sessions, fidelity of implementation data, and progress monitoring results. This documentation is essential both for making sound instructional decisions and for supporting a potential special education referral. The quality of tier data directly affects the quality of eligibility decisions.

Ecological and Environmental Assessments

Ecological assessment examines the interaction between a student and the various environments in which the student functions — home, school, community, and workplace. Rather than focusing solely on within-child deficits, ecological assessment recognizes that behavior and learning are influenced by environmental factors that can be modified to support student success.

Components of Ecological Assessment

Environmental inventory: A systematic analysis of the demands, expectations, and routines in the settings where the student needs to function. For example, an environmental inventory of a general education classroom would document the physical layout, instructional formats (lecture, group work, independent practice), behavioral expectations, communication demands, and social dynamics.
Discrepancy analysis: After inventorying the environment, the evaluator compares the demands of the setting to the student's current skills. The gap between environmental demands and student performance identifies the specific supports, instruction, or accommodations needed for the student to participate successfully.
Student-environment interaction: Ecological assessment considers how different environments affect the student differently. A student who is disruptive in a large, noisy classroom may function well in a structured, quiet setting. This insight helps teams design environmental modifications and select the most appropriate placement options.
Family and community context: Understanding the student's home environment, cultural practices, family resources, and community supports provides essential context for interpreting assessment results and designing culturally responsive interventions. Family interviews, home visits, and community resource mapping are tools used in ecological assessment.
Transition-focused ecological assessment: For older students, ecological assessment extends to postsecondary environments such as college campuses, workplaces, apartment complexes, and public transportation systems. The evaluator identifies the skills the student will need to function in these settings and designs instruction to close the gap.

Teaching Application: Conduct ecological assessments when a student is transitioning to a new setting (new classroom, new school, community-based instruction site, or postsecondary environment). Use the results to anticipate challenges, design proactive supports, and prepare the student for the specific demands of the new environment. Ecological data are especially valuable for writing meaningful transition IEP goals that connect directly to real-world settings.

Portfolio Assessment and Performance-Based Assessment

Portfolio and performance-based assessments offer alternatives to traditional testing that can be particularly valuable for students with disabilities, whose strengths and progress may not be fully captured by standardized measures.

Portfolio Assessment

A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work assembled over time that demonstrates growth, achievement, effort, and self-reflection. Portfolios are used in special education for both formative and summative purposes.

Types of portfolios: A showcase portfolio contains the student's best work, selected by the student to demonstrate peak performance. A growth portfolio includes work samples from different time points to show progress over a period. A process portfolio documents the steps involved in completing a project or learning a skill, including drafts, revisions, and reflections.
Portfolio contents: Typical artifacts include writing samples, math problem sets, artwork, lab reports, audio or video recordings of presentations, self-assessment rubrics, reflective journals, and teacher commentary. Each item should be dated and accompanied by a brief explanation of why it was selected and what it demonstrates.
Evaluation criteria: Rubrics or scoring guides define the criteria for evaluating portfolio contents. Criteria may include accuracy, complexity, creativity, growth over time, and quality of self-reflection. Using consistent rubrics ensures that portfolio evaluation is systematic rather than subjective.
Benefits for students with disabilities: Portfolios allow students to demonstrate learning through multiple modalities and over extended time periods, reducing the pressure and artificial constraints of timed tests. They also promote student agency, self-monitoring, and metacognitive skills as students select, organize, and reflect on their work.
Georgia alternate assessment: Georgia uses the Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA 2.0) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This alternate assessment includes a portfolio component in which teachers collect evidence of student performance on alternate achievement standards aligned to grade-level content.

Performance-Based Assessment

Performance-based assessment requires students to demonstrate knowledge and skills by completing a task or creating a product, rather than selecting answers from a set of options. These assessments measure the application of learning in authentic or simulated contexts.

Examples: Conducting a science experiment and writing a lab report, delivering an oral presentation, solving a real-world math problem and explaining the reasoning, navigating a community outing, preparing a meal, or completing a vocational task to employer standards.
Rubric design: Performance tasks are evaluated with analytic or holistic rubrics. An analytic rubric breaks the performance into separate dimensions (content accuracy, communication clarity, procedural accuracy) and scores each independently. A holistic rubric provides a single overall rating based on the total quality of the performance.
Task authenticity: The most valuable performance assessments mirror real-world demands. For students with disabilities, functional performance assessments — such as completing a job application, making a purchase, or using public transportation — provide direct evidence of skills needed for independent living and employment.
Reliability considerations: Because performance assessments rely on human judgment, inter-rater reliability (the degree to which two evaluators assign the same score) must be established through rater training and calibration. Clear, detailed rubrics with anchor examples improve scoring consistency.

Teaching Application: Design performance-based assessments that align with IEP goals and allow students to demonstrate competence in ways that match their strengths. Provide clear rubrics to students before the task so they understand expectations. Use performance assessment data alongside standardized measures to create a comprehensive picture of student achievement that informs both grading and IEP progress reporting.

Key Takeaways

Assessment serves multiple purposes: Screening, eligibility determination, instructional planning, progress monitoring, and program evaluation each require different tools and approaches. Special educators must select the right instrument for the right purpose.
Formal and informal assessments complement each other: Standardized, norm-referenced tests provide comparative data for eligibility decisions, while informal, curriculum-based measures guide daily instruction and track growth over time.
Norm-referenced scores compare; criterion-referenced scores diagnose: Understanding this distinction is essential for interpreting results accurately and communicating findings to families and team members.
Accommodations preserve the construct; modifications change it: Know the difference and select assessment supports that match the student's documented needs without invalidating the results.
Cultural and linguistic fairness is a legal and ethical mandate: IDEA requires nondiscriminatory assessment. Use multiple data sources, assess in the dominant language, consider background factors, and collaborate with bilingual specialists when evaluating culturally and linguistically diverse students.
CBM provides the data engine for RTI/MTSS: Brief, standardized probes administered frequently generate time-series data that drive instructional decisions across all three tiers of support.
Ecological assessment shifts the focus to the environment: By analyzing the demands of the settings where students need to function, special educators can design supports that bridge the gap between environmental expectations and student skills.
Portfolio and performance assessments capture what tests miss: These approaches document growth over time, allow multiple modes of expression, and measure the application of skills in authentic contexts — all of which are particularly valuable for students with disabilities.
No single assessment tells the whole story: Comprehensive evaluation requires multiple instruments, multiple informants, multiple settings, and multiple occasions. The IEP team must integrate all data sources to make sound educational decisions.

Free GACE Special Education General Curriculum (P-12) (735) Study Guide

What You'll Learn

Free Study Guide - Lesson 1