Research Search
Manzicopoulos, P. (2000). Can the Brigance K&1 screen detect cognitive/academic giftedness when used with preschoolers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? Roeper Review, 22(3), 185-191.
Summary of the study
This study is concerned with testing the validity of the idea that the Brigance K&1 screen (test) can be used for identifying the potentially gifted preschoolers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In the aftermath of having conducted the study’s empirical phases, the author came to confirm the validity of the initially proposed thesis while showing that the effectiveness-ratio of the test’s usage, in this respect, can be as high as 75% (Manzicopoulos, 2000, p. 186).
The validity/reliability of the instrument
The study does discuss the instrument’s applicability for detecting giftedness in kids while comparing the effectiveness of the Brigance K&1 screen to that of the K-ABC test, which is being used to recognize cognitive leanings in schoolchildren. The accuracy of the Brigance K&1 screen has been rated at the above-average level.
Use of the instrument in the study
How this study uses the instrument is indeed unique to an extent. The reason for this is that the instrument’s deployment took place in conjunction with the parallel deployment of other psychometric/cognitive inventories. Moreover, the author was the first to use the Brigance K&1 screen for the specific purpose of identifying giftedness.
Conclusion of the instrument for the purpose of the study
The study concludes that it is indeed fully appropriate to resort to the concerned instrument when it comes to selecting the potentially gifted in the group of preschoolers. The reason for this is that it is specifically while Brigance-tested that gifted kids tend to score the highest.
Lessons learnt from the study
In the aftermath of having been exposed to this study, I have come to recognize it as yet another instrument of objectifying a rather vague notion of giftedness, concerning young children. This, in turn, implies that the study is euro-centric to an extent, in the sense of promoting the positivist outlook on the notion in question.
Helfeldt, J. (1984). Test review: The Brigance K&1 screen for kindergarten and first grade. The Reading Teacher, 37(9), 820-824.
Summary of the study
In his article, the author explains what accounted for the discursive preconditions behind the adoption of the Brigance screen as the tool for measuring psycho-cognitive and perceptual capabilities in young children. He also elaborates on the technical aspects of how it is being done in practice.
The validity/reliability of the instrument
According to Helfeldt (1984), “The Brigance screen’s properties – its functional validity, domain selection validity, and reliability – are difficult to ascertain” (p. 823). At the same time, however, the author promotes the idea that the instrument should prove indispensable when it comes to choosing in favor of a proper educational approach to be used in each case.
Use of the instrument in the study
The article does not use the Brigance screen in any practical sense of this word, while mainly concerned with discussing the instrument’s theoretical and methodological subtleties. Nevertheless, the author does highlight what can be deemed the previously unexplored domains for the screen’s practical deployment, such as using it within the context of how one designs a remedial intervention.
Conclusion of the instrument for the purpose of the study
The article’s main finding is that, even though there is the apparent lack of axiomatic integrity to the discussed instrument, there can be only a few doubts about its practical usefulness, “The Brigance K&l Screen… is a well-organized criterion to assist in the early identification of individuals who need further testing” (Helfeldt, 1984, p. 824).
Lessons learnt from the study
As for me, Helfeldt’s article should be deemed rather enlightening. The reason for this is that it contains many in-depth insights into both: the instrument’s strengths and weaknesses. After having read it, I realized that the Brigance test was bound to be invented eventually because such a development appears to have been objectively predetermined.
Mantzicopoulos, P., & Maller, S. J. (2002). The Brigance K&1 screen: Factor composition with a head start sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(2), 164-182.
Summary of the study
This study was undertaken to test the reliability of the Brigance K&1 screen’s data, regarding the sample of 383 Head Start first graders in the Mid-West. The study’s empirically obtained findings suggest that the is no reason to refer to the instrument as being very reliable when it comes to identifying children that may be at risk of experiencing academic underachievement.
The validity/reliability of the instrument
The study does discuss the instrument’s validity at length. In this respect, the authors’ main argument is that there is too much subjectivity in how teachers/psychologists interpret the significance of Brigance scores, on the part of a particular child. What also undermines the test’s legitimacy is that the number of the contained subtests (within the Brigance K&1 screen) is not even nearly adequate.
Use of the instrument in the study
Probably, the most innovative quality of the discussed study is that it uses the methodology of correlation analysis to strengthen the discursive integrity of the would-be obtained data. This, in turn, does contribute towards validating the study’s main argument rather substantially.
Conclusion of the instrument for the purpose of the study
According to the authors, “(Brigance) subtest scores tend to be restricted in range, thus attenuating the reliability of specific subtests and subsequent subtest intercorrelations” (Mantzicopoulos & Maller, 2002, p. 178). This conclusion appears thoroughly consistent with the initially proposed hypothesis, which provides more credibility to the deployed line of argumentation, on the authors’ part.
Lessons learnt from the study
My overall impression is that the study is unnecessarily overcomplicated, which can be explained by the authors’ willingness to ensure the dialectical soundness of the would-be obtained data. It is still rather insightful, in the sense of exposing what causes the Brigance test to be often referred to as being highly unreliable.
Breidenbach, D., & French, B. (2012). A factor-analytic study of the structure of the Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills-II. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(5), 478-487.
Summary of the study
In their study, the authors aimed to test the methodological and discursive validity of the Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills-11 (CIBS-II), used for the Grades 1-6. According to the obtained data, CIBS-II can be indeed considered a scientifically legitimate instrument for assessing the psycho-cognitive capabilities in children – even even though the test’s structure is highly reflective of its designers’ perceptual biasness.
The validity/reliability of the instrument
The study does focus on exploring the measure of the instrument’s reliability. However, instead of proceeding to assess it from the solely normative perspective, the authors made a point in defining the measure of the instrument’s usefulness within the context of how teachers go about adjusting their educational approaches to be consistent with the psychometric needs of a child.
Use of the instrument in the study
The study does uniquely assess the validity of CIBS-II – that is, by the mean of subjecting the obtained test-scores to the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In its turn, this allowed the author to gain several insights into why CIBS-II is commonly deemed (by teachers and psychologists) as not altogether reliable.
Conclusion of the instrument for the purpose of the study
One of the study’s main conclusions is that the mentioned problem with CIBS-II is caused by the fact that, “The content of the subtests (within CIBS-II) overlaps to a higher degree than intended” (Breidenbach & French, 2012, p. 486). In its turn, this is hypothesized to reflect the overall lack of methodological soundness within the context of how the test is being administered.
Lessons learnt from the study
The main thing that I learned in the aftermath of having been exposed to the study is that there are several fully objective reasons to consider CIBS-II thoroughly consistent with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I also expanded my awareness of what accounts for the main arguments in favor of the idea that the test is both: methodologically sound and practically useful.
Exploration of the instrument
The purpose of the instrument
The key purpose of the Brigance test (in all of its variations) is to single out those kids who should be sub-sequentially evaluated as those who may require being provided with some special educational treatment. Educators also resort to conducting this test when trying to identify the qualitative aspects of the class’s overall psycho-cognitive composition as a whole. The reason for this is that in the aftermath of having Brigance-tested every pupil in it, teachers will be in a better position to make sure that the would-be used teaching strategy proves effective.
Four developmental subdomains are being of particular interest to educators entrusted with the task of running this test on kids. They can be outlined as follows:
- Motor development. While conducting this particular phase of the test, teachers focus on evaluating a child’s ability to “control large groups of muscle involved in walking, sitting, or transferring from one position to another” (Rydz, Shevell, Majnemer, & Oskoui (2005, p. 5). The main rationale for assessing motor skills in children is that the very paradigm of the ‘early-age learning’ presupposes the strongly defined experiential nature of the process in question. In its turn, this implies that to be able to succeed in learning; a child must be comfortable with remaining physically active throughout the process’s entirety.
- Language skills. In this respect, the test’s foremost objective is to assess a child’s ability to express its thoughts in a logically sound manner, reflective of his or her understanding of the dialectical relationship between causes and effects. The testee’s skills of linguistic articulation are being evaluated as well. The discursive justification for having language evaluation integrated into the test has to do with the assumption that preschoolers are capable of recognizing the properly constructed sentences on an intuitive level.
- Adaptive reasoning. Young children are expected to prove that they are not only capable of attaining new knowledge by being encouraged to indulge in several different play-to-learn activities, but also reflecting on what they learn critically. According to the test’s designers, even though such a capacity in preschoolers is rather rudimentary, it is still possible to confirm its presence/absence with ease.
- Psychosocial development. Those in charge of conducting the test look for the indications that a child does have what it takes to be able to socialize with his or her peers in the classroom environment without experiencing any difficulties.
The Brigance test is mostly used for the identification of learning disabilities in kids. However, it is now being also deployed to help teachers to detect the signs of giftedness in children through the early phases of their psycho-cognitive development. Even though the instrument’s main function is to screen, it is also commonly resorted to when it comes to choosing the most appropriate incentives for a child to excel as a learner. This serves as yet another proof that the discussed test is indeed a valuable educational tool.
The instrument consists of 12 subtests that make it possible for a teacher to evaluate every preschooler/first grader alongside his or her psychometric, cognitive, motoric, and perceptual abilities. The Brigance test also serves the purpose of providing educators with observation checklists for detecting the presumably ‘problematic’ behavioral patterns in children, and for defining the qualitative subtleties of one’s suspected endowment with ‘giftedness’.
Finally, the instrument helps teachers to determine whether every particular child will be able to adapt socially. In its turn, this is supposed to make it much more likely for teachers to choose in favor of the methodologically appropriate educational approach to be deployed concerning the Brigance-tested children.
The target age range for the instrument
Initially, the instrument was intended to be used with preschoolers. This explains the apparent simplicity of the contained questions and also the fact that the test can be administered by teachers who do not have any prior experience in assessing children as learners. Nevertheless, as time went on, it has been increasingly used to evaluate first graders. As of today, it became a common practice in quite a few states to require 6-graders to take the test.
This, of course, could not result in anything else but the emergence of different variants of Brigance test, and in adding many additional subtests to the initial twelve: “The CIBS-II for Grades 1 to 6 includes more than 150 subtests” (Breidenbach & French, 2012, p. 480). The mentioned tendency suggests that it is very likely for the instrument to continue becoming ever more popular with teachers. This eventual development would be fully consistent with the current educational trends in the West, such as the ever-increased standardization of learning strategies in the domain of early education.
Administration of the instrument
The instrument can be administered by just about anyone qualified to work with young children as a teacher or psychologist. On average, administering the test takes 40 minutes. While Brigance-tested, a child is asked to reply to several questions, concerned with determining his or her ability to indulge in the ’cause-effect’ reasoning, as well as with gaining insights into how this child tends to react psychometrically to the externally applied stimuli.
Throughout the process, the teacher is expected to compliment the evaluated youngster on account of his or her mastery in addressing Brigance-tasks – even if the concerned kid exhibits the sings of experiencing much difficulty doing what is being required of him or her. The reason for this is that the testing can only proceed for as long as there is a 100% guarantee that it will not result in causing the affected child any psychological damage.
The instrument’s deployment takes place on a ‘one-to-one’ basis, which is meant to contribute towards ensuring that the concerned kids remain in the state of emotional ease throughout the procedure’s entirety. If requested by parents, the test can also take place at home. In this case, parents are held responsible for making sure that the test-administrator does not experience the shortage of any necessary assets while evaluating the child’s psychometric characteristics.
The instrument’s administration deploys both: the written and oral means of gathering the data of relevance and presupposes that the tested child is provided with the circumstantially appropriate incentive to stay focused on answering the questions.
Scoring of the instrument
The maximal score on the Brigance test is 100. It is derived from calculating the ratio between proper responses to each item in the subtest, on one hand, and the number of such subtests, on the other. The weight associated with each particular subtest is included in the formula as well. Up until today, the scoring is done on a fail-pass basis, which simplifies the test’s administration rather substantially. Those children who score lower than 60 or higher than 95 are believed to require additional attention, on the part of educators, as this presupposes that the concerned youngsters need to study within the educational settings adjusted to their psycho-cognitive predispositions.
The most problematic issue about the test’s scoring paradigm is that the evaluation of such predispositions in children takes place within the socially isolated context, which makes it much harder for a child to take practical advantage of its endowment with emotional intelligence while trying to score highly during the test.
Another important challenge, in this respect, is that one’s Brigance score is invariably affected by the highly personal specifics of how the concerned administrator tends to perceive the surrounding social reality, which raises a certain doubt about whether the interpretation of such a score is as impersonal as the test’s advocates claim it to be.
As of today, education theorists continue to apply much effort into reducing the factor of perceptual subjectivity, within the context of how teachers interpret the discursive implications of a child’s Brigance-score. This contributes rather substantially towards ensuring the scientific soundness of the test in question while establishing the objective prerequisites for it to continue being regarded as a valuable educational asset into the future.
References
Breidenbach, D., & French, B. (2012). A factor-analytic study of the structure of the Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills-II. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(5), 478-487.
Helfeldt, J. (1984). Test review: The Brigance K&1 screen for kindergarten and first grade. The Reading Teacher, 37(9), 820-824.
Mantzicopoulos, P., & Maller, S. J. (2002). The Brigance K&1 screen: Factor composition with a head start sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(2), 164-182.
Manzicopoulos, P. (2000). Can the Brigance K&1 screen detect cognitive/academic giftedness when used with preschoolers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? Roeper Review, 22(3), 185-191.
Rydz, D., Shevell, M., Majnemer, A., & Oskoui, M. (2005). Topical review: Developmental screening. Journal of Child Neurology, 20(1), 4-21.