ASSESSMENT MYTHS AND CURRENT FADS :

A REJOINDER TO A POSITION PAPER ON NONBIASED ASSESSMENT

ALEXANDER TOLOR

Fairfield University
The Region 9 Task Group osition paper on unbiased assessment of culturally
different children providef the impetus for describing a number of fallacies
pertaining to psychological tests and the assessment procedure for educational
purposes. Among the fallacies identified were that child advocacy necessitates
the renunciation of standardized assessments, that diagnoses are either harmful to children or useless, that the use of norms in testing is detrimental to a
childs well-being, that standardized tests are devoid of value since they fail
to he1 teachers formulate appropriate teaching methodologies, and that the
multiisciplinary assessment approach is necessarily the most efficacious.
Although it has become highly fashionable to mount sweeping criticisms of
standardized tests, a responsible position requires a more careful analysis of
the assumptions underlying the use and misuse of these instruments.

The recent release of a position statement by the Region 9 Task Group, encompassing the Northeast region of the nation, on nonbiased assessment of culturally
different children (Region 9 Task Group on Nonbiased Assessment, Note 1) has
prompted this comment. It is realized that the position taken by the Task Group is
quite similar to that given broad exposure recently by other groups and represents
a viewpoint that has been widely disseminated to diverse publics having varying
degrees of interest in, and sophistication about, the nature of psychological assessments. Therefore, my reactions are not intended to be limited to one specific document, but relate to the broader issues pertaining to child evaluation in general.
While there can be no quarrel with the Task Groups expressed aim . . . to
further the awareness of State Education Agencies and local school administrators
as well as to assist local educational assessors in performing assessments of children in a nonbiased manner (Note l , p. 9), the Region 9 document, as do so many
similar currently fashionable releases, contains a number of distortions and misunderstandings about tests and their application that need to be corrected.
Confusion Between Child Advocacy and Value of Assessments
A pivotal issue pertains to whether alliance with a child advocacy position
requires the thoughtful person ips0 facto to be critical of psychological assessment
procedures. Somehow, there seems to be a tendency to link the two. For example,
the shrill calls for moratoria on the use of standardized I& tests for placement in
special educational programs, which have occurred in some areas of the country,
the strong challenge on the part of certain organizations to the use of tests in the
evaluation of minority children, and the increased resistance on the part of some
members of the educational community to standardized achievement, aptitude, and
intelligence tests for evaluating children and the efficacy of educational programs
(McKenna, 1977), all seem to flow from a legitimate desire to protect the rights of
the child. Indeed, very often they actually do. However, it is equally likely that
emotional appeals for such restrictions mask the desire on the part of specific
R.equests for reprints should be sent to Alexander Tolor, Institute for Human Development,,
F~irfieldUniversity, North Benson Rd., Fairfield, CT 06430.

205

206

Psychology in the Schools, April, 1978, Vol. 16, No. 2.

individuals and organizations to protect or enhance their own vested, often politicized, interests regardless of the validity of the assessment procedures in question.
More importantly, the abandonment of formal assessment approaches may actually serve to deprive the handicapped child of the opportunity to obtain the appropriate attention and services to which he is legally entitled based on his unique
needs.
The point is not th at we should be casual about choosing appropriate instruments and that we should not interpret results cautiously within the context of
our knowledge of the limitations of all measurement devices, but it is to challenge
the concept that child advocacy necessarily demands curtailment of the use of whole
categories of measurement devices.

The Fallacy that Diagnoses are Harmful or Useless

Throughout the Task Group position paper there is the implication that
systems of child classification serve no useful purpose. Thus, we note on page 15,
for example, The most accurate description of what any child can or cannot do
results from a n assessment which contains information that is situation specific . . , ,
I . . . the comparison of each child to himself i s the only defensible assessment procedure (italics mine), and on page 23, . . . assessment will have a different focus,
utilizing the asset approach rather than concentrating on deficits and etiology.
The problem with this extreme and simplistic categorical position is, first,
that it fails t o take into account the purpose of tests, i.e., to provide samples of
more generalizable and predictable performances; second, that it views the child
as a functioning individual divorced from a11 other functioning individuals; and,
third, that i t fragments the child into separate parts in which assets are assigned
the highest priority, while the role of deficits, personal history, and prognoses
within a holistic conception of the child is denied or minimized.
Let me examine briefly each of these points. If psychological tests serve any
useful purpose a t all, and I believe they do, they must transcend the immediate
testing situation. In other words, the test a t the least should be a sample of a much
broader domain of functions without requiring the measurement of the entire
class of functions. At best, test results should provide, t o a greater or lesser extent,
insight concerning the individuals potential areas of special strengths, areas of
weakness, and, in some instances at least, they should offer clues about the likely
cause of the disability, if a disability is in fact identified. To be sure, not all tests
are capable of accomplishing all of these goals, and certainly not all of the time.
However, the one standard th at all tests must meet in order to qualify as useful
tests is that they must permit inferences to be made for situations outside the
given testing situation; otherwise, they are indeed wasteful of everyones time.
When the Task Group focuses on situation-specific descriptions, it is assuming
that standardized tests do not lead to generalizable and predictable performances.
The large number of validation studies in the literature render such a verdict false.
Regarding the second point, namely, that if one asserts that comparison of a
child with himself is the only defensible mode of assessment, as do the critics of
standardized tests, then one is perceiving the child in isolation from all other children. Such a view of the child would indeed be tragic. Pushed to its logical limits,
such a position would deny the fact of individual differences, the fact th a t some

Assessment Myths and Current Fads: A Rejoinder

207

children are extremely intelligent and others are retarded, that some children have
great facility in language skills and others have great facility in arithmetical skills.
Moreover, it also would deny the existence of differences in progress made by
groups of children who are exposed to better or poorer educational methodologies.
As for the third point, referring to the critics contention that the asset approach, not deficits or etiologies, should be focused upon in assessment, there is no
question of the importance of determing a childs special strengths. There is a real
problem, however, in not determining also areas of special weaknesses, since the
total child encompasses both strengths and weaknesses. Those who seek to blind
themselves t o the weaknesses are denying reality as much as those who are insensitive t o strengths. An accurate global view of the child incorporates all aspects of
functioning. Only then can assets be properly developed and weaknesses given
necessary remedial attention. I n this connection, in those instances when tests also
can offer etiological clues, they can often point to much more effective intervention,
i.e. intervention based on distinctive causative factors.

The Fallacy that the Use of Norms i s Detrimental to the Childs WelGBeing
This fallacy is closely related to the previous one. Although it recognized that
criterion-referenced testing also holds considerable potential bias, the Task Group
took the position, embraced by a growing number of educators a t the present time,
that criterion-referenced assessment is more appropriate than norm-referenced assessment in the academic area. Underlying this position are the unwarranted assertions
that the use of group norms is unfairly discriminating against culturally different
children and that it deprives such children of equivalency of educational opportunities (Note 1, pp. 14-15). If children with culturally different backgrounds must
relate to, cooperate with, and compete against children of the predominant culture,
then i t is most beneficial to know how such children function in relation to others.
Such knowledge is no more unfairly discriminatory than the knowledge th a t certain
childrens vision deviates from the accepted norm. Moreover, the chances of offering
equivalency of educational opportunities, if anything, seem greatly to be enhanced, not diminished, once a childs abilities in relation to other childrens have
been adequately determined.
I n brief, i t is hard to understand how a n appeal for greater ignorance (and
that is exactly what this misguided phobia of norms implies) can serve any useful
purpose. Abolishing norm-referenced assessments will not favor the handicapped
nor will i t produce any good for those having average or above-average abilities.
It goes without saying that norms must be intelligently employed, meaning
that the questions asked must be related to the appropriate norms. For example,
if the question is how a particular Chinese-American fifth-grade boy compares in
reading t o other fifth-grade Chinese-American boys, then culturally appropriate
norms would be used. On the other hand, if the question is how this same boy compares with other fifth-grade boys in general, then much broader norms naturally
must be consulted.
It is conceded that everyone must be alert to possible cultural bias in the
labeling process, even by those who desire to be maximally helpful. Mercers (1973)
detailed analysis of the systematic cultural bias occurring in the diagnostic process
indicated that it is not present so much at the stage a t which teachers and princi-

208

Psychology in the Schools, April, 1978, Vol. 16, No. 2.

pals refer children for individual testing; it occurs more at the stage where the
psychologist selects the children suspected of intellectual impairment. Since the
psychologist often can test only a small percentage of referred children, he or she
may focus on the culturally different child, making this type of child a greater risk
for detection of a deviancy.

The Fallacy that Tests Lack Value Because They Fail to Help Teachers Improve
Teaching
Standardized tests have been criticized because they lack the specificity to
help teachers in selecting t,he most appropriate teaching methodologies for individual students or groups of students (e.g., see McKenna, 1977, p. 38). This argument
embodies the fallacy that unless an assessment instrument leads to a teaching prescription it is next to useless within an educational setting. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Different tests may be appropriate for different purposes. Although
some tests do indeed provide clues concerning the ways in which a child might
best be helped educationally, if a test does not result in specific advice for teaching,
it is not to be faulted. Teaching methodologies are based on the conceptualization
of the problem and its solution-functions that should be exercised by the teacher
at all times. In turn, the conceptualizations should be based on data, including
observations made in the classroom, teacher-prepared evaluations, and standardized tests. Tests are not substitutes for teachers doing some long and hard thinking
of their own, and having various problem-solving approaches at their disposal. To
demand that a test inform the teacher how best to teach is as irrational as demanding
that a thermometer prescribe the treatment approach to the physician.
The Myth of the Superiority of the Multidisciplinary Approach
Although there is almost as universal an appeal for the use of a multidisciplinary
assessment approach as there is for promoting the virtues of The Family, there
is a total lack of evidence that the multidisciplinary approach provides a more
accurate understanding of the child or that it leads to more effective educational
intervention than a carefully done assessment by one open-minded, competent
professional person. In view of the absence of any demonstrated superiority of the
multidisciplinary approach, it is all the more surprising that the Task Group
recommended that multidisciplinary team assessments for the evaluation of children be mandated.
It has been my experience that often the pattern of ignorance is merely compounded by involving a greater number of people, that patterns of dominance and
submissiveness in groups dictate decisions much more often than do rational considerations, and that the interdisciplinary assessment approach is often duplicative
of effort, wasteful of time, unnecessarily costly, and conducive to bureaucratic
red tape. Most important, perhaps, is the fact that the team approach may lead
only to an illusory view that nonbiased child assessments are being performed.
Final Comment
Past educational fads have promised much and produced little of lasting significance. There have been numerous shifts in educational party line positions, as
witnessed, for example, by the total reversal from the recommended placement in

Assessment Myths and Current Fads: A Rejoinder

209

special classes of special children to the currently fashionable mainstreaming of

such children. These extreme recommendations presented uncritically and without
sufficient research have been misleading to both teachers and parents, often leading
to a generalized disillusionment with the educational enterprise and to diffuse
resentment. It behooves teachers, psychologists, and other serious minded people
to resist the lltrendy, to assume a rational posture toward important issues, and
to avoid misinforming or misleading the public. The currently fashionable, but
dangerously inaccurate, educational position is to indict standardized tests in an
unqualified way as being biased. The sweeping criticism of tests is unjustified
and will not serve children, the culturally different, the handicapped, the normally
functioning, or the specially gifted, in the long run.
REFERENCE
NOTE
1. Region 9 Task Group on Nonbiased Assessment. A position statement on nonbiased assessment of
culturally diferent chiklren. Unpublished manuscript, November 1976. (Available from Northeast Regional Resource Center, 168 Bank Street, Hightstown, N j )

REFERENCES
MCKENNA,
B. Whats wrong with standardized testing? Todays Edueation, 1977, 66, 34-38.
MERCER,
J. R. Labeling the mentally retarded: Clinical and social system perspective in mental retardation. Berkeley : University of California Piess, 1973.

PARENTAL EVALUATIONS OF PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORTS:

A CASE STUDY
ROMERIA TIDWELL AND JACK WETTER

University of California, Los Angeles

The purpose of this cme study report was to determine what parents want
and the degree to which they value psychoeducational reports prepared by
school psychologists. The sam le ( N = 44) consisted cf parents whose children
were seen as out-patients of tKe Learning Disorder Clinic within the Department of Pediatrics a t the UCLA Center for the Health Sciences. All subjects
completed a questionnaire designed to determine the parents expectation and
satisfaction concerning their childs psychological evaluation. Results showed
positive impressions regarding evaluations, their usefulness, and their content.

The expectations and degree of satisfaction of parents who have direct interaction with educational personnel have been shown to affect their childrens learning
and development. A typical interaction has always been between parent,s and
teachers, both inside and outside the classroom. Wolhford (1974) showed that
Head Start programs were more effective when parents were direct participants
in the learning activities. Both parents and children, in this study, were found to
benefit from the experience, in that direct involvement promoted better academic
learning and improved social development by the children and helped to develop a
strong bond between parent and child. Hogan (1975) found that a three-way conference which includes parent, teacher, and child was viewed positively. Such a triRequests for reprints should be sent to Romeria Tidwell, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024.