Assessment of attention in school children: teachers' ratings related to tests of attention

The paper provides (1) a teacher-administered rating instrument for inattention without confounding the rating with hyperactivity and conduct disorder, and (2) evidence that the ratings correlate with the scores obtained from cognitive tests of attention. In Study I, the first objective was to investigate the construct validity and the inter-rater reliability of the Attention Checklist (ACL) by factor analysing the teacher ratings of 110 Grade 4 children, obtained by using the ACL. The second objective was to investigate the predictive validity of the ACL by examining the relationship between the scores obtained for the participants from teachers' ratings using the ACL and the scores obtained by participants in the lab-type attention tests. The results of factor analysis showed that a single factor labelled ‘inattention’ underlies the 12 items in the ACL. Examining the differences in performance on attention tests, the ‘low attention’ children as rated by the teachers on the ACL scored lower than the ‘high attention’ children on the objective tests of attention. These findings were replicated in Study II, which was conducted to test further the construct validity and predictive validity of the ACL. This time, only those two tests (Auditory Attention and Visual Attention) that had shown relatively poor discrimination between the high and low attention groups in Study I were, again, administered to another cohort of 97 Grade 4 children, as it was our intention to further challenge the reliability of the ACL. Overall, the results of both studies suggest that comprehensive assessment of attention skills should include both ACL and objective measures of selective attention.     

Making Sense in Education: Pretense (Including No Child Left Behind) and Realities in Rhetoric and Policy About Schools and Schooling

One wrong assumption about reality is sufficient to ensure the failure of education policy. For a variety of reasons, too many people have ignored realities in policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act. Individuals who are serious about reforming or improving education, general or special, must confront realities in at least the following areas: measurement, statistical distributions, measurement error, labels, special services, teacher responsibilities, and teacher training. Enacting or supporting education policy that is known to be seriously flawed is unacceptable and tantamount to the criminal conduct of someone who markets goods with known safety defects or harmful effects or of someone who ignores critical realities in the conduct of business.