Assessment: From Traditional to Functional

In addition to ensuring that all students with disabilities areprovided a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, it is also important to use an appro- priate assessment process (Overton, 2006). Specifically,in the United States, it is by law that schools ensure thatproper assessment procedures are used including variousassessment techniques when determining eligibility andplanning instruction (Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct, 2004). The purpose of this article is to go beyond themore traditional tests and discuss other assessment in- struments that might assist adapted physical educators inselecting the appropriate assessment instruments. Theremay be tests not widely used that maybe more appropri- ate for assessing a specific student referred for evaluation.Adapted physical educators must be able to determine theappropriate assessment for each student, instead of trying to fit all students into a standard battery of tests todecrease inappropriate labeling and to ensure appropriateperformance data were used to plan effective instructionalprograms for students with disabilities.

PDF

___

1. Brigance, A. (1999). Brigance Diagnostic Instrument (rev.). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
2. Cooper Institute, The. (2007). FITNESSGRAM (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
3. Council of Exceptional Children (2007). CEC Gives cautious approval to new regulations on assessing stu- dents with disabilities. Retrieved April 07, 2007, from Author Web site: http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Tem- plate.cfm?Section=Search&template=/ CM/HTMLDis- play.cfm&ContentID=8177
4. Folio, M., & Fewell, R. (2000). Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (2nd Ed.). Austin, TX: Pro Ed.
5. Horvat, M., Block, M. E., & Kelly, L. E. (2007). Developmental and adapted physical activity assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
6.Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq.
7. Jansma, P. (1999). Psychomotor domain training and serious disabilities. (5th Ed.) Lanham, NY: University Press of America.
8. Jansma, P., Ersing, W., & McCubbin, J. (1986). Final Report, grant No. G008300001, U.S. Department of Ed- ucation, office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Columbus, OH: The Ohio University.
9. Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation. (1989). Motor activities training program (MATP). Washington, DC: Special Olympics International.
10. Kasser, S. L., & Lytle, R. K. (2005). Inclusive physical activity: A lifetime of opportunities. Human Kinetics: Champaign.
11. Overton, T. (2006). Assessing learners with special needs: An applied approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12. Rudolph, D., & Arnhold, R. (1981). Project MOBILITEE. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
13. Sherrill, C. (2004). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Crossdisciplinary and lifespan. (6th ed.). Madison, WI: McGraw-Hill.
14. Silliman-French, L. (2004). Assessment, the IEP, and the accommodation plan. In C. Sherrill (Ed.). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Crossdisci- plinary and lifespan. (6th ed.). 162-175. Madison, WI: McGraw-Hill.
15. Silliman-French, L., & Buswell, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). TAHPERD: Adapted physical education manual of best practices: Administrative guidelines and policies (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: TAHPERD. Silliman-French, L., Buswell, D. J., & French, R.
16. (2008). Statewide Physical Fitness Testing and Stu- dents with Disabilities in Texas. Presented in Website: http://www.tahperd.org/
17. Silliman-French, L., Stephens, T., French, R., & Kinnison, L. (2010). Application of growth models in physical fitness assessments. Palaestra, 25(2), 6-9.
18. Special Olympics International (2002). Special Olympics motor activities training guide. Washington, DC: Author.
19. Winnick, J. P., & Short, F. X. (1999). The Brockport Physical Fitness Test manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.