Chapter 4 Measurement, Assessment, & Program Evaluation
Dec 18, 2015
Standardized Approaches Usually “store bought” tests Usually known validity and reliability Generally strong test-wise but weaker
authentically Mainly two approaches:
Norm referenced testsCriterion referenced tests
Norm-Referenced Assessment “Norms” are developed by testing large
numbers of individuals Comparisons are made against other
studentsExample: President’s Council of Physical Fitness
Test (>85th percentile = presidential, >50th percentile = national)
Example: “Above average” and “below average”
1. TGMD-2
• Purpose: to test fundamental gross motor content frequently taught in preschool and elementary school.
• Description: 12 patterns are tested• Locomotor subset: run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, and
slide.• Object Control: striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch,
kick, underhand roll, and overhand throw.
• Scoring is performance criteria listed with each pattern.• The criterion scores can be compared to norm-referenced
standards (aka “best of both worlds”)• High reliability and validity
Criterion-Reference Standards Comparisons are made to predetermined
“mastery” scores, not other individuals Example: Fitnessgram
Student scores fall into one of two classifications: healthy fitness zone or needs improvement.
See next two slides
2. Brockport Physical Fitness Test
• Purpose: to assess the health-related fitness of youngsters (aged 10–17) with certain disabilities.
• Description: typically 4 to 6 test items are selected from 27 possibilities based on a “personalized” approach.
• Scoring: test scores are compared to criterion-referenced standards based on gender, age, and in some cases disability.
• Comment: closely related to FITNESSGRAM and supported by computer software.
• Cheat sheet
3. Observation
• Usually teacher constructed and based upon observation• This is the most common method used in the schools
today• Why: cost effective and less time consuming• Brockport: $180 (manual, CD, video)($32 just manual)• TGMD2: $191 (kit)
• Has day-to-day applicability• Strong authentically but weak psychometrically (premium
on subjective evaluation)• Other methods: rubrics, task analyses, and portfolios
Observation:RubricsRUBRICS: Includes scoring criteria and level of
achievement. These progressions can be used to assess any locomotor and object-control skills.
Types of rubrics: • 1. Analytic rubric: Breaks down a skill to meet the needs
of someone working on mastering a skill. • 2. Individual rubric: This rubric is used to meet the
individual need of a child. This can be used to address someone with a disability whose needs must be met in a small class setting. This is an excellent procedure to use to meet a child’s IEP goals/objectives.
Observation:Motor Development Checklist
• This is a progressive checklist for locomotor and object-control skills. Each skill is broken down from simplest to most difficult. As the student performs the assigned task, teacher will check off when a student is able to successfully complete a task.
4. Many Other Tests
There are tests designed for nearly every disability normally relating to psychomotor or cognitive performance.
5. No measurement or assessment
Teacher fails measure student learning and as a result, has no evidence besides anecdotal observations that a student is improving.“Hope” methodCycle of instruction is broken Real missed opportunity for a population that
needs PE more than anyone.
Program Evaluation
• Increasingly important to demonstrate that instructional program is good, not merely claim it is good.
• Requires that program pre-intervention assessments, goals, strategies, and mastery assessments be articulated.