Olivia Engebretson

Test Evaluation

A. General Information

Title: Test of Early Language Development, Third Edition (TELD-3)

Authors: Hresko, Wayne P; Reid, D. Kim; Hammill, Donald D.

Publisher: PRO-ED, 8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Austin, TX, 78757-6897

Dates of Publication: 1981-1999

Time Required to Administer Test: 15-40 minutes

Cost: $264 per complete kit; $74 per manual; $64 per picture book; $39 per

each Profile/Examiner Record booklet (Form A and Form B); $54 per

manipulatives

B. Brief Description of Purpose and Nature of Test

General Type of Test:

The TELD-3 is meant to be administered individually. The test was

created to assess overall spoken language (specifically expressive and

receptive). The test is not designed for multiple children at one time.

Population for Which Designed:

This test was designed for children ages 2 years to 7 years-11 months.

The author-outlined five purposes of the test are: to identify candidates for

early intervention, to identify strengths and weaknesses of individuals, to

document progress in an intervention program, to serve as a research tool in

language development, and to accompany other assessment techniques.

There are two form included with this test. Each of these two forms

has 37 items to assess Receptive Language and 39 items to assess Expressive

Language. The test materials are easy to use and well prepared. For each

item, the child is given a verbal direction and then shown a stimulus object or

a picture. Then the child is then invited to respond to prompts for each item.

This response is scored. Although the test is thorough, the authors claim that

the score on this test is the best predictor or future language skills, which is

not directly evidenced.

Subtests and Separate Scores:

This test contains two forms, (A and B). Each form has two subtests,

one for Expressive Language and one for Receptive Language. The Receptive

Language subtest contains 37 items; Form A has 24 semantic items and 13

syntax items, while form B has 25 semantic items and 12 syntax items. The

Expressive Language subtest contains 39 items; Form A has 22 semantic

items and 17 syntax items, while form B has 24 semantic items and 15 syntax

items. This test produces scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation

of 15 for each subtest and the overall composite. Also provided are

percentiles and age-equivalent scores.

Item Types:

The child is given each item one of three ways: verbally, shown a

stimulus object, or shown a picture. The child is then asked to respond to a

number of prompts for that item. This response is scored. An example given
 by the reviewers is this: The child is shown “a picture card containing a

number of pictures. The examiner points to the picture of the fireman and

asks the child to tell the examiner about the picture. The child gets a point if

the child mentions the fireman and describes the event depicted by the

picture.”

C. Practical Evaluation

Qualitative Features of Test Materials:

The physical presentation of the test is well organized by each

domain. All questions are clearly written and it is easy to navigate through

the test. The test booklets and manual are also clear and organized. They are

bright, attractive and spiral bound as well. However, the manipulative objects

included with the test do not seem durable enough to hold up over several

uses of the test, and are small enough to be easily misplaced.

Ease of Administration:

In this edition of the test (as opposed to the previous) materials

required are included, as well as the use of colored stimulus pictures. This

makes giving the test much easier than previous editions. The test materials

are prepared well and are easy to use. The authors take the time to safeguard

against bias based on race, gender and disabilities, and those steps are stated.

The test kit itself is arranged clearly and attractively. The scoring sheets are

attractive and are easy to use. For children taking the test, the set of

manipulatives is simple and colorful, along with useful.

The directions of the test are very easy to understand. The questions

that children are asked are explicitly stated and the examiner must only

repeat them. The manual clearly describes how to score each question.

Scoring Procedures:

The test kit includes score sheets that are visually appealing and are

easy to use. Scores are produced with a mean of 100 and a standard

deviation of 15 for each subtest and the overall composite. Linear standard

scores, percentiles, and age equivalent scores are provided. Each item of the

test is scored individually. The test provides a standard score with a mean of

100 and a standard deviation of 15.

Examiner Qualifications and Any Training Required:

Examiners who would like to give this test should have some formal

training in administering tests and also in the interpretation of assessments.

This training should include an understanding or testing statistics, an

understanding of test administration procedures as well as scoring and

interpretation, and information about language evaluation. Also preferred is

supervised practice in using language tests. Before giving this test, examiners

should consult the policies and regulations of the organization requiring the

test. It is recommended that first time examiners of this test study the

manual and practice giving (on colleagues and children) and scoring the

items of the test.

Face Validity and Test Taker Rapport:

may have physical disabilities, either fine or gross motor. There are

questions that ask children to stand and move, and questions that ask

children to point specifically to objects. The test also does not consider

children with other disabilities, such as visual, auditory, or intellectual. The

test questions are not sensitive to all ethnic backgrounds and levels of SES

because they require children to identify objects and pictures that they may

not have been exposed to in their lives, such as “bear,” “bike” or “mountain.”

D. Technical Evaluation

Norms:

The normative sample for this test consisted of 2,217 children from

35 states in the United States of America. The 35 states included states from

every region in the United States, making it a fairly representative sample of

regions. The sample was almost even at 51% female and 49% male. The

sample was 81% white, 13% black, and 6% other, showing that the sample

was not representative of all races. It also was not representative of rural

areas, as only 21% of children came from those areas. The income levels of

families were very evenly spread out among children.

Reliability

The average coefficients for the subtests and composite all exceed or round

to .90, a level that represents high reliability.

i. Retest
 This type of reliability was investigated using two different groups of

children. Both forms of this test were administered twice within a time span

of two weeks. The resulting coefficients ranged between .82 and .95, which

strongly supports that this test has acceptable test-retest reliability.

ii. Parallel Form

This test did not use “parallel form” to determine reliability. Both

forms of the test were administered each time.

iii. Split-half

This test did not use “split-half” to determine reliability because it is

not recommended for timed tests.

iv. Kuder-Richardson or Coefficient Alpha

This test did not use this type of reliability because it is recommended

for true/false or multiple choice tests.

v. Inter-rater or Inter-scorer

For this test, two advanced graduate students of special education at

the University of North Texas independently scores the set of 35 randomly

selected protocols. The results of the scoring were correlated and these

coefficients provided strong evidence supporting the TELD-3’s scorer

reliability.

vi. Long Term Stability

This test described nothing of long term stability.

Validity:

Content Validity
 Five uses of content validity are offered for this test: a rationale

underlying the selection of formats and items (based on field testing with

105 children, developmentally appropriate items were chosen for this test), a

relationship of TELD-3 subtests to other language tests (the content is

proved reliable by comparison with other tests), conventional item analysis

(quantitative evidence is provided by the results of traditional time tested

procedures used to select good items for a test), and differential item analysis

(the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square approach and the Delta Plot approach were

used compare item performance between groups). This test was found to

have content validity.

Criterion-related Predictive Validity

The TELD-3 was first correlated with the TELD-2, and the

significance of the coefficients is apparent. The test was then used in several

separate studies. All of the correlations listed are significant at the .05 level;

all but one is significant at the .01 level. The magnitude of these coefficients

substantiates the criterion-related validity of the TELD-3.

E. Reviewer Comments:

Both reviewers feel that the Test of Early Language Development-3rd Edition

is a useful instrument for screening children with potential difficulties. They agree

that the test is dependable, valid and unbiased in the areas of receptive, expressive

and overall language development. However, one of the reviewers (Hoi K. Suen of

Pennsylvania State University) believes that more studies should be done to decide
if the TELD-3 is effective to identify strengths and weaknesses of individuals and to

identify candidates for early intervention.

F. Summary Evaluation

Strengths:

1. The manual of the test explicitly states directions on how to administer,

record and score the items.

2. Different areas of language development (expressive, receptive, and

overall) are assessed.

3. The test provides developmentally appropriate activities for each item.

4. The test is determined to be reliable and valid.

Weaknesses:

1. The test claims to be that the composite score is the best predictor of

future language ability but there is no direct evidence to support this.

2. The demographic characteristics of the test are primarily white (81%),

urban (79%) children.

3. The test gives scores for language development, but does not provide

developmentally appropriate activities and instruction for the child’s

improvement.

References:
Hresko, Wayne P., Reid, D. Kim, Hammill, Donald D. (1981-1999). Test of Early

Language Development, Third Edition. Texas: PRO-ED.

Mental Measurements Yearbook. (2004). Review of the Test of Early Language

Development, Third Edition. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost