44,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Essentials of Psychological Assessment
- Sprache: Englisch
A practitioner-oriented guide to the most important assessments and evaluation techniques for children ages 0-5
Many assessment professionals leave their graduate education programs without any formal training in assessing infants and young children. Although there are assessment textbooks covering subsets of this age range, Essentials of Assessing Infants, Toddlers, and Pre-Schoolers is uniquely designed for busy practitioners, and it covers the full range of assessments for 0-5 years old.
With medical advances and new treatments, there is a higher prevalence of children with complex medical and psychological needs. Additionally, changing educational policies often affect assessment practices. Assessment professionals must have current information to effectively assess young children and assist in planning interventions. As with all volumes in the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, this book consists of concise chapters featuring callout boxes highlighting key concepts, easy-to-learn bullet points, and extensive illustrative material, as well as test questions that help you gauge and reinforce your grasp of the information covered.
- Understand the issues unique to assessing children aged 0-5 years
- Get expert advice on assessing children with extremely early preterm birth, genetic conditions, and other unique situations
- Consider the future directions in the assessment of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers
- Quickly and easily locate pertinent information and access resources and tools to aid in performing professional duties
This straightforward manual includes thorough coverage on how assessment results guide effective interventions. Essentials of Assessing Infants, Toddlers, and Pre-Schoolers is a valuable addition to the libraries of developmental practitioners, school and clinical psychologists, pediatricians, speech-language pathologists, and others responsible for the assessment of very young children.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 488
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication Page
FOREWORD
REFERENCES
One OVERVIEW OF INFANT, TODDLER, AND PRESCHOOL ASSESSMENT1
RATIONALE FOR AND IMPORTANCE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION
BRIEF HISTORY OF INFANT, TODDLER, AND PRESCHOOL ASSESSMENT
LAW AND ADVOCACY
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ONLINE RESOURCES
Two UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS AND FACTORS IN ASSESSING AND EVALUATING YOUNG CHILDREN
LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND FACTORS
EXAMINER CONSIDERATIONS AND FACTORS
CHILD CONSIDERATIONS AND FACTORS
CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUNG CHILDREN THAT DESERVE SPECIAL ATTENTION
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF MEASURES USED WITH YOUNG CHILDREN
QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS
QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Three RESPONSIBLE ASSESSMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
PRESCHOOL SCREENING
PROGRESS MONITORING
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Four ASSESSMENT OF IDEA DEVELOPMENTAL DOMAINS
DOMAIN SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENTAL BATTERIES
FUNCTIONAL PREACADEMICS
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Five ASSESSMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN WITH LOW INCIDENCE DEVELOPMENTAL AND MEDICAL DISORDERS
GENETIC DISORDERS
GENETIC DISORDERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES
DEAFBLINDNESS
DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER
PRETERM BIRTH
CEREBRAL PALSY
SUMMARY OF LOW INCIDENCE DEVELOPMENTAL AND MEDICAL CONDITIONS
REFERENCES
Six ASSESSMENT TO INTERVENTION
EARLY INTERVENTION
TRANSITION FROM EI TO PRESCHOOL
PRESCHOOL SERVICES
SPECIALTY SERVICES
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Seven FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN ASSESSMENT OF INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND PRESCHOOLERS
ADVANCEMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
PRESCHOOL ASSESSMENT WITHIN AN EVOLVING SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL
GRADUATE PREPARATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
APPENDIX: INFANT AND TODDLER ASSESSMENTS BY DOMAIN
SUMMARY OF CURRENT INFANT AND TODDLER ASSESSMENTS
REFERENCES
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Child Considerations and Factors That May Affect Assessment/Test ...
Table 2.2 Criteria for Evaluating the Adequacy of the Quantitative Characte...
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Example Goals for Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
Table 6.2 Example Goals for Age‐Appropriate Skills in Preschool
List of Illustrations
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Multitier System of Support for Preschoolers
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication Page
FOREWORD
Begin Reading
APPENDIX: INFANT AND TODDLER ASSESSMENTS BY DOMAIN
Index
Wiley End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
v
ix
x
xi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
Essentials of Assessing Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers
Brittany A. Dale, Joseph R. Engler, and Vincent C. Alfonso
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial intelligence technologies or similar technologies.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750‐8400, fax (978) 750‐4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748‐6011, fax (201) 748‐6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
The manufacturer’s authorized representative according to the EU General Product Safety Regulation is Wiley‐VCH GmbH, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany, e‐mail: [email protected].
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974, outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data Applied for:
Paperback ISBN: 9781394152070
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Robert/Adobe Stock
To my Alan, my forever teammate, partner, and love, thank you for always believing in me even when I may not believe in myself. You always encourage me to pursue my dreams and to stay persistent as I work toward them. To Isaac, you have been the greatest gift, and I am honored to be your mom. Your energy, laughter, and kindness brighten my world. You both are my heart, my strength, and my inspiration.
‐Brittany
Although titles have never been important to me, there is one that I cherish and has fundamentally changed my life. The title is ‘dad.' To Elin and Siena, thank you for giving me this title and all the happiness that comes with it! Every day I pinch myself knowing that I get to share my life with you. Watching the two of you develop into such wonderful human beings has truly been a gift. To Calissa, my partner and best friend, thank you for your steadfast love and support. Every day you model and teach our children the importance of love, laughter, generosity, forgiveness, and so much more. I am forever grateful that you chose me.
‐Joe
As I near the end of my formal, professional career, there are many individuals in my life who have guided, mentored, challenged, and cared for me. The number is high, but the following individuals have been my closest and longest professional guardian angels and for them I am forever grateful and dedicate this volume: Anita Batisti, Anthony Cancelli, Jim Hennessy, Steve Hess, Patricia Killen, Pat Lee, Beth Martin, Skip Meyers, Bob Niehoff, and Jim Voiss.
‐Vinny
FOREWORD
In the paraphrased words of Alexander Pope, “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.” This timeless adage, from his 1732 work Epistles to Several Persons, underscores the profound impact of early experiences on a child's development. It is this foundational wisdom that drives the emphasis on infant and early childhood assessment and intervention among psychologists and educators and provides the basis for this book authored by Dale, Engler, and Alfonso. More than a century of developmental research has demonstrated that the experiences of early childhood can shape an individual’s future in significant ways. Positive early influences foster robust and healthy development, while adverse conditions can lead to lifelong challenges. This book delves into the critical role of early childhood assessment, identification, education, and intervention toward nurturing healthy children, adolescents, and adults. As the former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass aptly stated, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”
Chapters 2 and 3 of this book highlight the necessity of a combined standardized and clinical approach to validly assess young children. Creating a supportive and engaging environment during assessments is essential to make children feel comfortable and cooperative, as emphasized by Bracken and Theodore (2020a, 2020b). This artful combined clinical and standardized approach to assessment incorporates a variety of crucial factors, including children's temperament styles, cultural contexts, health, and socialization experiences. Given that young children express themselves uniquely and sometimes idiosyncratically, assessments must be flexible and adaptable while maintaining standardized administration to ensure integrity. To enhance the validity and reliability of assessment data, it is crucial to triangulate information through meaningful in vivo observations, interviews with teachers and caregivers, and the administration of developmentally appropriate direct assessment tools. Current instrumentation, processes, and procedures are covered herein in a conversant and descriptive manner, making the reader aware of considerable general information while providing salient references for those who seek additional detail.
Chapters 4 and 5 reflect decades of developmental research, which mapped “normal” child development, identified important developmental domains, led to the formation of relevant professional organizations, and revealed myriad common developmental disorders. Arnold Gesell’s pioneering work in the assessment and documentation of infant and toddler development was crucial in elucidating the rate and sequence of early childhood developmental milestones. Understanding when these momentous events typically occur helps professionals identify potential issues of concern and determine when interventions might be necessary. Because early childhood years are a critical period of rapid physical, cognitive, linguistic, and social‐emotional growth, identifying delays in any area of development—be it language, motor skills, cognition, social‐emotional, or adaptive behavior—early in a child’s life can lead to timely, evidence‐based interventions, ensuring children receive the support they need to thrive.
Assessing young children with low‐incidence developmental and medical disorders requires specialized expertise and tools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B identifies core developmental areas—cognition, motor skills, language, social‐emotional development, and adaptive behavior—that are vital for healthy development. These domains are extensively covered in the literature of professional organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), and the American Psychological Association (APA). IDEA Part B legislation aspires to ensure that children with disabilities receive early intervention across these essential domains. To facilitate evidence‐based interventions based on developmentally sound assessments, the authors appropriately stress the importance of collaboration among healthcare professionals, educators, and caregivers to provide comprehensive care and support.
Chapter 6 outlines a proactive assessment‐intervention approach that may help caregivers and professionals foster children's potential, reduce future learning difficulties, and contribute to better long‐term outcomes in education, health, and social skill development. Early identification of developmental issues also supports families by providing caregivers with essential information, identifying community resources, and promoting collaborative strategies to effectively nurture their child's development.
This book, through its seven highly relevant chapters, explores the history and future trends in infant and early childhood assessment and intervention. It also considers the legal requirements and professional guidelines for working with culturally, ethnically, and physically diverse populations of exceptional children. Critically, this book highlights the importance of developmentally appropriate early childhood assessments and evidence‐based interventions, emphasizing the essential connection between the two. By delving into these themes, the authors provide a comprehensive understanding of how timely assessments and interventions can shape healthier, more successful futures for children. This book serves as a valuable resource for professionals and caregivers dedicated to supporting the developmental needs of young children.
Bruce A. Bracken, PhD
October 28, 2024, Williamsburg, VA
REFERENCES
Bracken, B. A., & Theodore, L. A. (2020a). Observations of preschool children’s assessment‐related behaviors. In V. C. Alfonso, B. A. Bracken, & R. J. Nagle (Eds.),
Psychoeducational assessment of preschool children
(5th ed., pp. 33–54). Rutledge.
Bracken, B. A., & Theodore, L. A. (2020b). Creating the optimal preschool testing situation. In V. C. Alfonso, B. A. Bracken, & R. J. Nagle (Eds.),
Psychoeducational assessment of preschool children
(5th ed., pp. 55–76). Rutledge.
“As the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined.” The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Retrieved October 15, 2024, from Encyclopedia.com:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries‐thesauruses‐pictures‐and‐press‐releases/twig‐bent‐so‐tree‐inclined
. Oxford University Press.
OneOVERVIEW OF INFANT, TODDLER, AND PRESCHOOL ASSESSMENT1
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Benjamin Franklin
It is important to have a context from which to understand the focus of this volume, which is infant, toddler, and preschool assessment. As such, we begin this volume with the rationale for and importance of early childhood assessment followed by a brief history of infant, toddler, and preschool assessment using several sources of information, including Alfonso et al. (2022), Alfonso, Bracken, et al. (2020), Alfonso, Engler, et al. (2020, 2024), Alfonso, Ruby, et al. (2020), Black and Matula (2000), Goodman (1990), Kelley and Surbeck (2007), and Nagle et al. (2020). Additionally, Sattler (2018) has a very useful summary of the historical milestones in intellectual and developmental assessment.
The interested reader is encouraged to review these sources as well as others, including Chapters 3 and 6 in this volume, to gain a thorough understanding of the history of infant, toddler, and preschool assessment. We begin the chapter by providing a rationale for the importance of early childhood assessment and intervention. Then we provide information on relevant law and advocacy for the assessment of young children. At the end of the chapter, we provide a brief annotated bibliography and a list of early childhood resources for further learning. Finally, the Appendix summarizes infant, toddler, and preschool measures by domain and age as a resource for practitioners working with young children. Throughout this volume, we use various terms relevant to the assessment of young children. See Rapid Reference 1.1 for a definition of the most relevant terms.
Rapid Reference 1.1Key Definitions
Assessment
The process of gathering data to inform decision‐making
Evaluation
The interpretation of assessment data to inform decision‐making
Measure/Test
A specific assessment tool used for an evaluation of a young child
RATIONALE FOR AND IMPORTANCE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION
In this section, we discuss the rationale for and importance of early childhood assessment, highlighting the following: (1) nurturing the youngest of the species, (2) incidence and prevalence of early childhood disorders, (3) effectiveness of early childhood education and intervention, and (4) the use of technology in the delivery of early childhood health services. Although space limitations preclude a lengthy discussion of these topics, our goal is to provide enough scientifically based knowledge so the reader understands the need for and benefits of early childhood assessment and intervention.
Nurturing the Youngest of the Species
Most, if not all animals, in the animal kingdom protect and nurture the youngest of their species, at least until they can care for themselves. Popular television shows such as Earth Odyssey (2019‐present), Wild Child (2021‐present), Jack Hanna's Into the Wild (2007‐,2020), and many others fascinate children and adults alike as they learn about survival in the wild and how young animals are raised by their adult parents. In 2005, the movie March of the Penguins was released to critical acclaim, and we learned how adult male and female emperor penguins share the responsibility of raising their young.
Despite some evidence to the contrary, such as mass shootings of children in the United States and war‐torn countries where children are inexplicable casualties, adult male and female human beings (i.e., homo sapiens) nurture their children with great care and love at least until age 18 years when they become legal adults. Indeed, homo sapiens are members of the animal kingdom and as such, share many of the characteristics of other animals. For example, the famous zoologist Desmond Morris wrote extensively in The Naked Ape (1967) on how homo sapiens are like other great apes (i.e., primates) in their care for the young. Most of us are also familiar with another ethologist, Jane Goodall, who studied chimpanzees' social and family interactions for more than six decades.
The work of several psychologists such as John Bowlby (e.g., 1988), Mary Ainsworth et al. (e.g., 1978), and Harry Harlow (e.g., 1958), to name a few, influenced our thinking of attachment, the parent–child bond, and the importance of healthy early child development for success later in life. Although some researchers and scholars question the influence of or need for parents in children's lives (e.g., Harris, 2000), most believe that parents (or at least loving, nurturing adults) are important influences in a young child's life (see, e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Collins et al., 2000; Davis‐Kean et al., 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; Wilder, 2014).
In addition to parents or primary caregivers, there are many other influences on young children's development sometimes referred to as spheres of influence. Some of these spheres include friendships (e.g., Harris, 2000), extended family members such as grandparents (e.g., Mayer, 2002), immediate physical context (e.g., Evans, 2021), environmental factors such as national and world climate change and toxins (e.g., Koger et al., 2005; Vergunst & Berry, 2022), and socioeconomics including financial and other resources (e.g., Aber et al., 1997; Aboud & Yousafzai, 2015; Brooks‐Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Chen, 2012; Evans, 2004; Evans & Cassells, 2014; Evans & Kim, 2013; Evans et al., 2013; Fernald et al., 2009; Frankenhuis & Nettle, 2020; Maholmes & King, 2012; McLoyd, 1998; The World Bank, 2015). Later in this chapter, we address the importance of early childhood assessment and intervention as they relate to some of the influences stated here.
Before we turn to the incidence and prevalence of early childhood disorders, it is worth noting the mounting evidence contrary to John Locke's concept of the young child as a blank slate (1690/1947). Today we know and every year we learn more about the capabilities of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (see, e.g., Feldman, 2019 and Pinker, 2002). Once thought of as organisms upon which the world shapes and influences them in a unidirectional manner, we have learned how capable these youngest members of the species are as well as how they shape and influence adults in their lives. For example, de Barbaro and Fausey (2022) described a study that involved infants wearing audio recorders, accelerometers, and cameras to capture their experiences in everyday life. These researchers concluded that “The striking heterogeneity of experiences—the fact that there is no meaningfully ‘representative’ hour of a day, instance of a category, interaction context, or infant—inspires next steps in theory and practice that embrace the complex, dynamic, and multiple pathways of human development” (p. 28).
DON'T FORGET 1.1
In addition to parents or primary caregivers, there are many other influences on young children's development, sometimes referred to as spheres of influence.
Indeed, human development is complex and dynamic and includes multiple pathways. Recent research in fields of study such as biology, cognitive science, medical physics, neuroanatomy, neuropsychology, obstetrics, and others indicate this clearly (e.g., Adolph, 2019; Aylward, 2020; Cesario et al., 2020; DiPietro, 2000; Glynn & Sandman, 2011; Lee et al., 2018; Perone et al., 2021; Reid & Dunn, 2021; Romeo et al. 2018; UNICEF, 2017). It is incumbent upon early childhood practitioners to engage in professional development activities such as attending conferences, viewing webinars, reading articles in a variety of fields, and consulting with other professionals to remain abreast of the myriad advances we know about young children's capabilities and the influences on early childhood development. We turn now to the incidence and prevalence of early childhood disorders and disability categories.
Incidence and Prevalence of Early Childhood Disorders and Disability Categories
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of early childhood disorders depending on what source or diagnostic/classification system the practitioner uses. The three most common diagnostic/classification systems are the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004)1, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM‐5, TR; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022), and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (IDC‐10; World Health Organization [WHO], 2016). Practitioners working in early childhood educational settings use IDEA as their classification system or guide when determining eligibility for early intervention or special education services because it is tied to government early intervention funding and other resources and is the model to be used in public education settings. That said, there is almost no one‐to‐one correspondence between disability categories found in IDEA and disorders found in the DSM‐5‐TR or ICD‐10.
CAUTION 1.1
There is almost no one‐to‐one correspondence between disability categories found in the IDEA and disorders found in the DSM‐5‐TR or ICD‐10.
As such, we discuss the disability categories found in Parts B and C of IDEA. These disability categories or types are applicable to children ages 3–5 years (Part B) and children ages birth to 2 years (Part C)2. Rapid Reference 1.2 includes the 13 disability categories for individuals ages 3–21 years (which, of course, includes children ages 3–5 years). It is important to note that states also have the option of classifying a young child, including those between 3 and 5 years, as a child with a developmental delay rather than using the discreet disability categories found in Rapid Reference 1.2 (Danaher, 2011). Although this modification to IDEA was well‐received in the early childhood community, it made the task of counting children under the 13 disability categories very challenging. Moreover, unlike preschool children with disabilities served in Part B of IDEA, children in early intervention (Part C) are not classified by their disability category or type. They are classified as having an established condition or developmental delay (McWilliam, 2016).
Boyle et al. (2011) determined the prevalence of developmental disabilities in children in the United States and in selected populations from 1997 to 2008. Although they included individuals between ages 3 and 17, they concluded that the prevalence of any developmental disability increased from 12.84% to 15.04% over the 12‐year period. Autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental delays increased, whereas hearing loss showed a significant decline. These trends were found in all sociodemographic subgroups, except for autism in non‐Hispanic black children.
Rapid Reference 1.2Thirteen IDEA Disability Categories Applicable for Children Ages 3–5 Years
Deaf Blindness
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment
Emotional Disturbance
Orthopedic Impairment
Multiple Disabilities
Hearing Impairment
Specific Learning Disability
Intellectual Disability
Other Health Impairment
Autism
Developmental Delay
Speech or Language Impairment
The United States Department of Education (USDOE) provided data on the number of 3–5‐year‐old children with disabilities served under IDEA, Part B, from 2010 to 2018 (USDOE, 2020b). For example, in 2010, nearly 179,000 3‐year‐olds were served, while in the same year, nearly 263,000 and 297,000 4 and 5‐year‐olds, respectively, were served. Seven years later in 2018, the respective numbers were 192,000, 283,000, and 339,000. As can be seen in these numbers, more children at each age were served in 2018 than in 2010. In 2018–2019, 6.75% of 3–5‐year‐olds in the United States were served under Part B of IDEA. An additional percentage of interest in 2018–2019 is that 8.43% of students with disabilities, aged 3 through 5, were English Learners. Rapid Reference 1.3 includes the 13 disability categories for individuals ages 3–5 years along with the corresponding number of children served in each category for the year 2018–2019.
Rapid Reference 1.3Thirteen IDEA Disability Categories Applicable to Children Ages 3–5 Years and Number of Children Served in Each Category in 2018–2019
Deaf Blindness – 181
Traumatic Brain Injury – 1,158
Visual Impairment – 2,697
Emotional Disturbance – 2,882
Orthopedic Impairment – 5,111
Multiple Disabilities – 7,702
Hearing Impairment – 8,865
Specific Learning Disability – 8,909
Intellectual Disability – 13,369
Other Health Impairment – 26,104
Autism – 92,990
Developmental Delay – 307,335
Speech or Language Impairment – 337,707
Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW): “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2018–2019. http://go.usa.gov/xdp4T.
According to the USDOE Office of Special Education Programs, the number of children receiving services under Part C of IDEA rose from 194,000 in 2010 to more than 400,000 in 2022 (USDOE, 2020a). The amount of money in millions of dollars rose from 117 in 1991 to nearly 500 in 2022. Finally, the amount of dollars per child increased from 603 in 1991 to more than 1200 in 2022 (ECTA, 2024). These data indicate clearly that the USDOE recognizes young children (birth to 2 years) at risk for developmental delay and is allocating much‐needed financial resources to support their success. It is important to note, however, that these data reflect the number of children receiving services. Some researchers indicate there are many more children in this age range who are eligible for services, but for many reasons, are not receiving them (e.g., Barger et al., 2018; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Twardzik et al., 2017).
CAUTION 1.2
There are many more young children (birth to 2 years) who are eligible for services, but for many reasons, are not receiving them.
If we believe as a species that we should be caring for our young and that the number of young children (birth to 5 years) eligible for early childhood intervention services is increasing each year due, in part, to the child find element in IDEA, it seems reasonable to ask if early childhood education and intervention are effective. We turn to this topic next but offer here a resounding answer of yes as the data in support of the effectiveness of early childhood education and intervention are nearly indisputable.
Effectiveness of Early Childhood Education and Early Intervention
There are few guarantees in life and perhaps even fewer facts or truths in psychology or education. However, in the past several decades research via a myriad of studies has demonstrated the benefits of early childhood education and early intervention (Alfonso, Ruby, et al., 2020; Avellar et al., 2013; Guralnick, 1997; Hebbeler et al., 2007; Hughes & Quinn, 2020; Karoly et al., 2001, 2005; Raines et al., 2020; Ramey & Ramey, 1998, 2004; Ramey et al., 2014; Redden et al., 1999, 2001; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1998; Trohanis, 2008; Zigler & Muenchow, 1992). For example, there is substantial agreement that high‐quality early intervention programs for vulnerable infants and toddlers can reduce the incidence of future problems in their learning, behavior, and health status and that intervention is likely to be more effective and less costly when it is provided earlier in life rather than later (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2008, 2010; National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2011). Moreover, these facts or truths seem to resonate with individuals from all walks of life, political parties, and professions who engage in working with young children (e.g., Division for Early Childhood [DEC] of the Council for Exceptional Children, 2014; National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2020; National Association of School Psychologists, 2015; Public Laws 99–457, 101–476, 105‐17, and 108–446).
Bann et al. (2016) demonstrated that early intervention altered trajectories of cognitive development among children from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is, children from low‐resource families receiving a home‐based intervention focused on motor, social, and language development, had 36‐month cognitive development scores statistically indistinguishable from those of children from high‐resource families. Litt et al. (2018) found that early intervention services improved school‐age functional outcomes among neonatal intensive care unit graduates, and Noyes‐Grosser et al. (2018) demonstrated that children with autism spectrum disorder showed reduced maladaptive behaviors and improved social and communication skills and some also made progress on IDEA Part C child outcome indicators. In addition, families of children with autism spectrum disorder reported that early intervention helped them achieve many outcomes identified as important to them.
Two early childhood programs or projects deserve special mention here: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart et al., 2005; Weikart, 1967, 1970) and The Carolina Abecedarian Project/Approach (Ramey & Campbell, 1984; Ramey & Ramey, 1999; Ramey et al., 1976, 1981, 1985, 2012, 2014). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project was a scientific experiment in Ypsilanti, Michigan, for young children to help them avoid school failure and many other challenges. It identified the short‐ and long‐term effects of a high‐quality preschool education program for young children living in poverty from 1962 through 1967. One hundred twenty‐three African American children were determined to be at high risk for school failure as indicated by socioeconomic and standardized assessment measures. Fifty‐eight were assigned to a program group that received a high‐quality preschool program at ages 3 and 4 years, and 65 of them were assigned to another group that received no preschool program. All children were randomly assigned and as such, most scholars and researchers believe it was the children's preschool experience that explained the group differences in education, income, crime, family relationships, and health. That is, the experimental group (those children who received the preschool program) outperformed the control group (those children who did not receive the preschool program) on each of these variables. The children (now adults) have been followed for decades with a missing data rate of only 6% across all measures.
The Carolina Abecedarian Project was like the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project in that its aim was to alter the life trajectory of young children from low‐resource environments by providing them with high‐quality early education. One hundred eleven infants from low‐resource families participated with 57 receiving high‐quality early childhood education and 54 receiving supports (e.g., social services, health care), but no high‐quality education. Specifically, in the Carolina Abecedarian Project.
“Control groups of children who did not receive the Abecedarian Approach received the same levels of support as the educationally treated children for additional health care, free and unlimited nutritional supports, and active social work services to the families, as well as timely referrals when any problems were detected or suspected. Because the control groups received these multiple supports, the research findings provided a strong basis for concluding that it was the educational features of the Abecedarian Approach that produced the documented differences between the children in the experimental groups and the comparison groups …” (Ramey et al., 2014, p. 441).
As with the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, there have been several follow‐up studies with the original Carolina Abecedarian Project participants into adulthood. Once again, those children (now adults) who received the high‐quality early childhood educational experience demonstrated significant differences (i.e., higher or better) in cognitive functioning, academic skills, educational attainment, employment, parenthood, and social adjustment (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Campbell et al., 2001, 2002). According to Ramey et al. (2014),
“The issue of efficacy of early childhood education for high‐risk children is settled. Yes, we can prevent a great deal of developmental delay. For us, the most pressing questions in early childhood education now become: (1) comparative efficacy of different early childhood programs, (2) differential response to treatment, (3) scale‐up of effective programs, and (4) standards for programs aimed at preventing developmental delay. It feels good to move beyond the efficacy issue that dominated thinking about early childhood education for half a century” (p. 468).
DON'T FORGET 1.2
The data in support of the effectiveness of early childhood education and intervention are nearly indisputable.
The importance of early childhood education and early intervention as explicated above, together with major advances in prenatal care, pediatric medicine, neuropsychology, and neuroimaging, have highlighted the need for reliable and valid assessment of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (e.g., Aylward, 2010, 2020; Brito, Fifer et al., 2019; Kelley & Surbeck, 2007; McCloskey et al., 2020; Snow & Van Hemel, 2008). Many scholars, researchers, practitioners, and organizations believe there are several purposes of infant, toddler, and preschool assessment. For example, Nagle et al. (2020) integrated other sources such as NAEYC, DEC, and individual scholarly works to summarize the major purposes, which they state are the following: (1) screening, (2) diagnosis and eligibility determination, (3) individual program planning and monitoring, and (4) program evaluation.
Typical domains of development requiring assessment include cognitive abilities and processes, motor skills, speech and language skills, social–emotional behavior, and adaptive behavior (Alfonso, Bracken, et al., 2020; Alfonso, Engler, et al., 2020; Bellman et al., 2013; Brassard & Boehm, 2007; NAEYC, 2020; Snow & Van Hemel 2008). Additional assessment domains include intrauterine (prenatal and perinatal), physical, parenting, parenting stress, and play. Play is particularly important to assess as there is ample evidence regarding the benefits of play on the young child's developing brain, social interactions, and cognitive functioning (e.g., Kelly‐Vance & Ryalls, 2020).
Many domains of functioning are assessed with developmental measures such as the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Fourth Edition (Bayley–4; Bayley & Aylward, 2019). For example, Alfonso et al. (2022) state that the Bayley–4 may be used for the following purposes: (1) to identify children with developmental delay, (2) research related to individual program planning and monitoring and program evaluation, and (3) to monitor a child's developmental progress. The Appendix provides a summary of infant, toddler, and preschool measures by domain and age as a resource for practitioners working with young children. The last topic in this section is the burgeoning use of technology in the delivery of early childhood health services.
DON'T FORGET 1.3
Typical domains of development requiring assessment include cognitive abilities and processes, motor skills, speech and language skills, social–emotional behavior, and adaptive behavior.
Use of Technology in the Delivery of Early Childhood Health Services
Given the need to provide early childhood assessment and intervention services to young children as soon as possible, especially for those living in rural areas, the use of technology is becoming an efficient and effective means of delivering these services. For example, Meadan and Daczewitz (2015) described internet‐based intervention training for parents of young children with disabilities as a promising service‐delivery model. Indeed, although the COVID‐19 pandemic had a profound effect on the use of technology in the delivery of early childhood services, including assessment and intervention, teleassessment, telepractice, and telehealth were occurring at least a decade prior or even earlier. For example, Behl et al. (2010) wrote about tele‐intervention as the wave of the future that was already in use with children and families where a child had hearing loss. In addition, these authors stated, “Many agencies within the United States are using telehealth practices to conduct hearing evaluations on infants who do not pass their newborn hearing screening test” (p. 28). Several years later, Behl et al. (2017) demonstrated the effectiveness of telepractice as a method of delivering early intervention services to families of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Baharav and Reiser (2010) discussed the use of telepractice in parent training in early autism. They noted several benefits, including treatment effectiveness, adaptability to technology, and client satisfaction with the service.
Still prior to COVID‐19, the state of Colorado began allowing the use of telehealth as an option for providers to conduct sessions with children and their caregivers in their Part C early intervention programming (Cole et al., 2019). Sutherland et al. (2018) reported a summary of studies of 284 individuals, ages 19 months to adult, with autism spectrum disorder who received a variety of telehealth services. Their results suggested “that services delivered via telehealth were equivalent to services delivered face to face, and superior to comparison groups without telehealth sessions” (p. 324). There have been studies and reports on the delivery of telehealth services for individuals across the lifespan, including young children, that took place during COVID‐19. For example, Andrews et al. (2020) conducted an integrative review of 18 studies that examined health care providers' and patient satisfaction with telehealth services during COVID‐19. They found high levels of satisfaction for patients and health care providers, and many were willing to continue telehealth after the pandemic. In Ore's (2021) review on the effectiveness of telehealth for children with autism spectrum disorder during COVID‐19, he concluded, “Evidence from the review indicates that telehealth can be an alternative to face‐to‐face cognitive assessment. Telehealth may present a feasible and reliable approach to the assessment of language for children with autism spectrum disorders in some circumstances as a primary or adjunct service model” (p. 3).
The interested practitioner may find additional publications worth reading as this section simply touched upon the evidence indicating that telehealth is an effective delivery model for early childhood services. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics (2020) discusses what is pediatric telehealth, Frye et al. (2022) discusses the implementation of telehealth during COVID‐19 as well as implications for providing behavioral health services to pediatric patients, and Atiles et al. (2021) reports on challenges faced by international early childhood professionals during COVID‐19. Chapter 7 of this volume expands the discussion of the use of technology in the delivery of early childhood services. Now we turn to a brief history of infant, toddler, and preschool assessment.
BRIEF HISTORY OF INFANT, TODDLER, AND PRESCHOOL ASSESSMENT
Although it may seem that early childhood assessment has been a common practice for centuries, it is only about 200 years old (Kelley & Surbeck, 2007). Influences on early childhood assessment include dozens of individuals, but a few are worth mentioning by name. For example, the precursor to early childhood assessment and developmental psychology may be attributed to the naturalistic observations of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi in the 18th century and G. Stanley Hall, who is regarded as the father of developmental psychology and was the first president of the American Psychological Association (APA; Black & Matula, 2000). In the latter part of the 19th century, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin to Charles Darwin, constructed “tests of memory, motor, and sensory functions to differentiate between high and low achievers” (Kelley & Surbeck, 2007, p. 4). As a result, Galton became known as the father of mental testing.
Perhaps the most famous early contributor to the practice of early childhood assessment, especially the assessment of mental ability or intelligence, was Alfred Binet, who with Theodore Simon, created the Binet‐Simon Scale for measuring the intelligence of school children (Binet & Simon, 1905). It was translated to English from French by Henry Goddard (a student of G. Stanley Hall), who also believed in the importance of early diagnosis, systematic testing, and special placements for school‐aged students who evidenced learning difficulties (Kelley & Surbeck, 2007). The Binet‐Simon Scale became the template for most, if not all, intelligence, and cognitive batteries to the present day.
The child study movement of the early 1900s, which saw a proliferation of funding, studies, and assessments of school‐aged children focusing on intelligence, memory, perception, emotion, personality, and motivation, influenced early childhood psychologists to begin paying attention to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (Black & Matula, 2000; Kelley & Surbeck, 2007). Among the most famous and influential early childhood (infant) psychologists was Arnold Gesell, who was also a pediatrician by training. Some refer to him as the grandfather of infant assessment (Goodman, 1990). According to Black and Matula (2000), Gesell, who was greatly influenced by Charles Darwin, “compiled a schedule of tasks for infants 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months of age and 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of age” (Gesell, 1925, p. 3). These Developmental Schedules continued to be used for decades in various circles, especially by medical personnel (Goodman, 1990), and influenced the first infant intelligence tests such as the Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale (Cattell, 1940), Griffiths Mental Development Scale for Testing Babies from Birth to Two Years (Griffiths, 1951), and Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1969). Black and Matula (2000) state, “These early assessments were designed to catalog an infant's level of development at various ages and to establish normative data” (p. 4). Unfortunately, they did not predict future functioning as many thought they would, which called into question their utility (Goodman, 1990).
In the past 50 years, several factors or variables have influenced the importance of early childhood assessment as well as the proliferation of measures or instruments to accomplish the task of reliable and valid assessment. Perhaps the most salient are the following cited by Black and Matula (2000): (1) many premature and medically vulnerable infants are surviving, which typically necessitates assessment, (2) infant assessments are needed to determine if infants are developing at an expected rate or evidencing a developmental delay, (3) whether young children meet the criteria for early intervention services, and (4) whether early intervention is effective in improving their rate of development. Additional factors that continue to influence the importance of early childhood assessment are law and advocacy that are discussed next.
DON'T FORGET 1.4
In the past 50 years, several factors or variables have influenced the importance of early childhood assessment as well as the proliferation of measures or instruments to accomplish the task of reliable and valid assessment.
LAW AND ADVOCACY
Earlier in this chapter, we discussed the effectiveness of early childhood education and intervention as an important rationale for early childhood assessment and corresponding intervention. Concomitant with the body of evidence in support of early childhood education and assessment is the increasingly greater focus of legislation and policy on assessing young children (Alfonso et al., 2024). Typically, practitioners assess young children suspected of having a developmental delay or a specific disorder (e.g., autism and intellectual disability). However, there is ample enthusiasm around universal pre‐k, full‐day kindergarten, and early childhood screening as means of prevention and promotion of success in the early grades.
Early Childhood Assessment and Intervention Public Laws
In 1986, Congress passed the 1986 amendment (PL 99–457) to the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (PL 94–142, 1975). This law extended downward the rights and provisions of school‐aged children with disabilities to children from 3 to 5 years of age, as well as infants and toddlers who were at risk for developmental delay. When Congress reauthorized PL 94–142 in 1990, it renamed it the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) known as PL 108–446. It was again reauthorized in 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, but it continues to be known as IDEA. As stated earlier in this chapter Part B, Section 619 of IDEA includes amendments such as ensuring free and appropriate special education services for preschoolers aged 3–5 years and allows individual states to use a broad definition of disability for children 3–9 years of age using the term “developmental delay” to identify a child who is experiencing delays in one or more areas of development. Areas of delay include physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional, and/or adaptive behavior domains.
Part C of IDEA included incentives for states to develop and provide comprehensive early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. These young children demonstrate developmental delays or have diagnosed conditions with a high probability of resulting in developmental delay (Alfonso et al., 2024). The IDEA also included more language and emphasis on transitional services from Part C to Part B and a focus on scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, including early literacy interventions (Alfonso et al., 2024; McBride et al., 2011; McWilliam, 2016). Part C also mandated a multidisciplinary assessment of the infant or toddler's strengths and weaknesses as well as family‐directed assessment, “or an understanding of the resources, priorities, and concerns of the family as well as the identification of the supports and services necessary in order to help the family meet the developmental needs of the infant and toddler” (Alfonso et al., 2024).
Early childhood practitioners also engage in assessment to ensure academic success, even when there is no suspected developmental delay or diagnosable condition. For example, in 2015, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; PL 107–110) was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) or PL 114‐95. The purpose of the ESSA was to expand access to high‐quality early learning so that every child begins kindergarten ready to learn and “to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high‐quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps” (Sec. 1001) (Alfonso et al., 2024). ESSA includes funds dedicated to improving the coordination, quality, and access to early childhood education. As such, school or academic readiness once again became familiar terms in the education law, and advocacy literatures. Concomitantly, there has been an increase in publicly funded preschool programs and assessment has been used to demonstrate accountability for various programs (Alfonso et al., 2024; Alfonso, Ruby, et al., 2020).
Head Start and Early Head Start
We would be remiss if we did not write about two of the most important and successful early childhood programs of the past nearly 60 and 30 years, respectfully. These programs are Head Start (which, in some ways, is the precursor to the federal legislation described above) and Early Head Start. In short, these programs were/are designed to provide high‐quality early childhood education and care that have a positive impact on young children's, especially those from low‐income households, cognitive, language, and social development (Raines et al., 2020).
The roots of Head Start3 date back to 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson declared the war on poverty. Drs. Robert Cooke and Edward Zigler were instrumental in launching Head Start, which established performance standards in 1975 and began offering full‐day and full‐year services in 1998. In 2007, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act was reauthorized. Several provisions were included in this act to ensure the delivery of high‐quality early childhood education and care. In the years that followed, additional changes were made to Head Start and Early Head Start, including the Designation Renewal System and revised Program Performance Standards. The Head Start Program serves more than 1 million children and families each year and since 1965 has served more than 36 million children and families. It is administered by the Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services. An excellent review of the history of many early childhood laws is provided by Raines et al. (2020). McBride et al. (2011) cover special education laws including those that address infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.
SUMMARY
Although early childhood assessment is a relatively new activity for practitioners, it is essential for several reasons as explicated in this chapter. These reasons include nurturing the youngest of the species, the ever‐increasing incidence and prevalence of early childhood disorders, the effectiveness of early childhood education and intervention, and the burgeoning use of technology in the delivery of early childhood health services. Early intervention for young children has shown to be a critical tool to ensure that young children at risk for developmental disabilities, medical disorders, and poverty live healthy and productive lives. Despite ideological, economic, political, and other challenges, the USDOE continues to increase funding for early childhood education and intervention. The remaining chapters in this volume provide in‐depth information on the unique considerations when assessing young children, responsible assessment of young children, the developmental domains to assess and why, low‐frequency disorders in young children, linking assessment to intervention, and the future of early childhood assessment.
TEST YOURSELF
When considering early childhood development, which of the following factors does evidence suggest is influential?
Caregivers or parents
Extended family
Physical context
All of the above
Since 2010, the incidence of early childhood disorders has:
Remained stable
Decreased
Increased
Not been measured
Based on data from 2018–2019, which IDEA disability category includes the highest number of children served?
Deaf Blindness
Speech or Language Impairment
Developmental Delay
Intellectual Disability
Evidence for early childhood education and intervention indicates the following:
It does not promote positive outcomes
It is more costly than waiting to intervene in adulthood
It produces negligible outcomes compared to control groups in most studies
It promotes an array of positive outcomes across developmental domains
Domains typically assessed in early childhood include:
Cognitive functioning
Social–emotional functioning
Speech and language skills
All of the above
Potential benefits of telehealth or teleassessment include:
Increased access to rural communities
More efficient and accessible service delivery
A and B
None of the above
The following statements are true regarding technology in the delivery of early childhood services except:
Should fully supplant the use of in‐person early childhood services
Has been utilized for more than two decades
Can be an effective service delivery model for clients with autism spectrum disorder
May be integrated within early intervention programming
Who is regarded as the father of developmental psychology?
Alfred Binet
G. Stanley Hall
Nancy Bayley
Arnold Gesell
Which two programs represent the importance and success of early childhood education programs?
Head Start
Early Head Start
A and B
None of the above
Which component of IDEA incentivizes states to develop early intervention services for children with disabilities?
Part C
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
Part B
None of the above
Answers: 1. d; 2. c; 3. b; 4. d; 5. d; 6. c; 7. a; 8. b; 9. c; 10. a
REFERENCES
Aber, J. L., Bennett, N. G., Conley, D. C., & Li, J. (1997). The effects of poverty on child health and development.
Annual Review of Public Health
,
18
(1), 463–483.
Aboud, F. E., & Yousafzai, A. K. (2015). Global health and development in early childhood.
Annual Review of Psychology
,
66
(1), 433–457.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐010814‐015128
Adolph, K. E. (2019). An ecological approach to learning in (not and) development.
Human Development
,
63
(3/4), 180–201.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000503823
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).
Patterns of attachment: Assess in the strange situation
. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Alfonso, V. C., Bracken, B. A., & Nagle, R. J. (2020).
Psychoeducational assessment of preschool children
(5th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429054099
Alfonso, V. C., Engler, J. R., & Lepore, J. C. C. (2020). Assessing and evaluating young children: Developmental domains and methods. In V. C. Alfonso & G. J. DuPaul (Eds.),
Healthy development in young children: Evidence‐based interventions for early education
(pp. 13–44). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000197‐002
Alfonso, V. C., Engler, J. R., & Stavrou, E. (2024). Assessment of preschoolers and school readiness. In L. A. Theodore, B. A. Bracken, & M. A. Bray (Eds.),
School psychology desk reference
(pp. 63–79). Oxford University Press.
Alfonso, V. C., Engler, J. R., & Turner, A. D. (2022).
Essentials of Bayley‐4 assessment
. John Wiley & Sons.
Alfonso, V. C., Ruby, S., Wissel, A. M., & Davari, J. (2020). School psychologists in early childhood settings. In F. C. Worrell, T. L. Hughes, & D. D. Dixson (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of applied school psychology
(pp. 579–597). Cambridge University Press.
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). (2020). What is telehealth? Retrieved November 16, 2024 from
https://www.aap.org/en‐us/professional‐resources/practicetransformation/telehealth/Pages/What‐is‐Telehealth.aspx
.
American Psychiatric Association. (2022).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed., text rev.).
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Andrews, E., Berghofer, K., Long, J., Prescott, A., & Caboral‐Stevens, M. (2020). Satisfaction with the use of telehealth during COVID‐19: An integrative review.
International Journal of Nursing Study Advances
,
2
, 100008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2020.100008
Atiles, A. M., Chavarría, V. A., Dias, M. J. A., & Zúñiga León, I. M. (2021). International responses to COVID‐19: Challenges faced by early childhood professionals.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
,
29
(1), 66–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1872674
Avellar, S., Paulsell, D., SamaMiller, E., & Del Grosso, P. (2013). Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/HomVEE_Executive%20Summary%20August%202017.pdf
.
Aylward, G. P. (2010). Methodological considerations in neurodevelopmental outcome studies of infants born prematurely. In I. C. Nosarti, R. Murray, & M. Hack (Eds.),
Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm birth from childhood to adult life
(pp. 164–175). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712166
Aylward, G. P. (2020).
Bayley 4 clinical use and interpretation
. Academic Press.
Baharav, E., & Reiser, C. (2010). Using tele practice in parent training in early autism.
Telemedicine Journal and E‐Health
,
16
(6), 727–731.
https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2010.0029
Bann, C. M., Wallander, J. L., Do, B., Thorsten, V., Pasha, O., Biasini, F. J., Bellad, R., Goudar, S., Chomba, E., McClure, E., & Carlo, W. A. (2016). Home‐based early intervention and the influence of family resources on cognitive development.
Pediatrics
,
137
(4), e20153766.
Barbaro, K., & Fausey, C. M. (2022). Ten lessons about infants' everyday experiences.
Current Directions in Psychological Science
,
31
(1), 28–33.
Barger, R. C., Simmons, C. A., & Wolf, R. (2018). A systematic review of Part C early identification studies.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education
,
38
(1), 4–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416678664
Bayley, N. (1969).
The Bayley scales of infant development
. Psychological Corporation.
Bayley, N., & Aylward, G. P. (2019).
Bayley scales of infant and toddler development
(4th ed.). Pearson.
Behl, B. K., Cook, G., Barrett, T., Callow‐Heusser, C., Brooks, B. M., Dawson, P., Quigley, S., & White, K. R. (2017). A multisite study evaluating the benefits of early intervention via telepractice.
Infants and Young Children
,
30
(2), 147–161.
https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000090
Behl, D. D., Houston, K. T., Guthrie, W. S., & Guthrie, N. K. (2010). Tele‐intervention: The wave of the future fits families' lives today.
The Exceptional Parent
,
40
(12).
Bellman, M., Byrne, O., & Sege, R. (2013). Developmental assessment of children.
British Medical Journal
,
346
(7891), 31–35.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8687
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux.
L'Année Psychologique
,
11
(1), 191–244.
Black, M., & Matula, K. (2000).
Essentials of Bayley scales of infant development‐II assessment
. John Wiley & Sons.
Bowlby, J. (1988).
A secure base: Parent‐child attachment and healthy human development
. Basic Books.
Boyle, B. S., Schieve, L. A., Cohen, R. A., Blumberg, S. J., Yeargin‐Allsopp, M., Visser, S., & Kogan, M. D. (2011). Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997–2008.
Pediatrics
,
127
(6), 1034–1042.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010‐2989
Brassard, M. R., & Boehm, A. E. (2007).
Preschool assessment: Principles and practices
. Guilford Press.
Brito, N. H., Fifer, W. P., Amso, D., Barr, R., Bell, M. A., Calkins, S., Flynn, A., Montgomery‐Downs, H. E., Oakes, L. M., Richards, J. E., Samuelson, L. M., & Colombo, J. (2019). Beyond the Bayley: Neurocognitive assessments of development during infancy and toddlerhood.
Developmental Neuropsychology
,
44
(2), 220–247.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2018.1564310
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist
,
32
(7), 513.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives.
Developmental Psychology
,
22
(6), 723–742.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.22.6.723
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development
(pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brooks‐Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children.
The Future of Children
,
7
(2), 55–71.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1602387
Burton, M., Curb, B., Fury, V., Penney, C. & Tear, M., (Executive Producers). (2021 – present).
Wild Child
[TV Series]. National Broadcasting Company.
Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller‐Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment.
Developmental Psychology
,
37
, 231–242.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow‐up study of children from low‐income families.
Child Development
,
65
, 684–698.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Sparling, J., & Miller‐Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project.
Applied Developmental Science
,
6
, 42–57.
Cattell, P. (1940).
Cattell infant intelligence scale
. Psychological Corporation.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2008). In Brief: The science of early childhood development. Retrieved November 16, 2024 from
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/download_file/‐/view/64/3
.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2010). The foundations of lifelong health are built in early childhood. Retrieved November 16, 2024 from
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/library/reports_and_working_papers/foundations‐of‐lifelong‐health/.
