Dr. Mora's Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessments

Dr. Camille Mora Ed.D. – Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessment – Excerpt MWERA
Conference Handout 1
The Five Scales Handout
School Use, Neuropsychological Assessment, Confidence in Trauma-informed Assessment,
Appropriate Intervention, and School Confidence.
I used 27 survey items to create five scales. Descriptive statistics were calculated
in order to examine items related to the five scales (school use scale,
neuropsychological assessment use scale, confidence in trauma-informed assessment
scale, appropriate intervention scale, and school confidence scale). Note, all mean
ratings are calculated on the following Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 =
Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly disagree.
School use scale. I calculated reliability statistics in order to test the normal
distribution of the school use variables. For the 5-item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was
.85 (N = 119). It was positive and greater than .70, meaning it provided good support for
internal consistency reliability (Leech et al., 2015). I combined these five items to create
a school use scale for further analysis (Table 4).
Table 4
Reliability Statistics for the School Use Scale (N = 119)
School use scale items M SD Skew
The school district provided an accurate assessment 3.00 1.24 0.34
Assessment was trauma informed 4.09 1.11 -0.89
Recommendations matched what I felt my child needs 3.23 1.32 0.08
Assessment informed my child’s IEP 2.68 1.33 0.56
I would recommend this assessment to other IA parents 2.80 1.37 0.31
Note. Ratings based on a Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree nor
disagree, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly disagree.

Neuropsychological assessment use scale. I calculated reliability statistics in
order to test the normal distribution of the school use variables. Two statements were
considered with respect to whether neuropsychological assessments were more
accurate and offered better outcomes for IA students. For the 2-item scale, the
Cronbach’s alpha was .78 (n = 44). It was positive and greater than .70; therefore, it
provided good support for internal consistency reliability (Leech et al., 2015). The two
items were combined to create a neuropsychological assessment use scale for further
analysis (Table 3). Originally this scale was meant to have the same five items as the
school use scale, but for neuropsychological assessments. However, Cronbach’s alpha
was low on the neuropsychological assessment use scale. This could have been due to
the relatively small n value of 44. Table 5 displays more information about the other
items related to this scale.
Table 5
Reliability Statistics for Neuropsychological Assessment Use Scale Items
Neuropsychological assessment use scale items N M SD Skew
Provided an accurate assessment. 73 2.34 0.620 1.61
Recommendations matched what I felt my child needed.
73 2.52 0.877 1.57
Table 6 displays the agreement level respondents had to selected statement
variables related to the accuracy of assessments. In the section for neuropsychological
assessment, the highest agreement was for “The neuropsychologist provided an
accurate assessment” (M = 2.45). The lowest amount of agreement was for “My child

received a trauma-informed assessment” (M = 3.09). In this table, the n values are low.
The low n in relation to the neuropsychological assessment data could have to do with
the practical fact that such an assessment costs around $5,000, compared to the
school/district assessment, which is free to families, and many families choose not to
have their child assessed that way. This could be because only a total of 70 families
(53%) reported that their children received neuropsychological assessments, and as in
the rest of the survey, many families did not answer all the question.
The second half of Table 6 displays the ratings of accuracy of school/district
assessments. In this table, the n values are higher than in the previous table, and the
standard deviations are higher as well. Highest agreement was for “This assessment
informed my child’s IEP” (M = 2.67). The lowest degree of agreement was for “My child
received a trauma-informed assessment” (M = 4.02).
Table 6
Accuracy of Assessment Based on Type
Item n M SD
Neuropsychological assessment
The neuropsychologist provided an accurate assessment. 56 2.45 0.711
I would recommend this type of assessment to other parents of
internationally adopted children.
41 2.51 0.746
Recommendations from the neuropsychologist matched what I
felt/feel my child needs.
70 2.56 0.862
This assessment informed my child’s IEP 73 2.97 1.030
My child received a trauma-informed assessment 82 3.09 1.090
School/district assessment
The school/district provided an accurate assessment. 134 2.96 1.200
I would recommend this type of assessment to other parents of
internationally adopted kids.
129 2.78 1.330
Recommendations from the school matched what I felt/feel my
child needs.
129 3.21 1.300
This assessment informed my child’s IEP. 126 2.67 1.300

My child received a trauma-informed assessment. 129 4.02 1.130
Confidence in trauma-informed assessments scale. Data in confidence in
trauma-informed assessments variables included five items. For this 5-item scale, the
Cronbach’s alpha was .75 (N = 137). It was positive and greater than .70, thus it
provided adequate support for internal consistency reliability (Leech et al., 2015). The
alpha for this confidence in trauma-informed scale indicated good internal consistancy.
These five items were then combined to create the confidence in trauma-informed
assessments scale that was used for further analysis (Table 7).
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Confidence in Trauma-Informed (TI) Assessment Scale
Confidence in TI scale items N M SD Skew
Child’s school uses TI instructional practices 137 3.73 1.20 -0.40
TI instructional practices would help my child
succeed
137 1.70 0.91 1.19
Child’s teacher uses TI practices in the classroom 137 3.67 1.22 -0.48
Child is more secure in a TI environment 137 1.96 0.94 0.58
Child does better in a TI school 137 2.21 0.94 0.29
Note. Ratings based on a Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree or
disagree, 4 = Disagree to 5 = Strongly disagree.
Appropriate intervention and opportunities scale. I calculated reliability
statistics in order to test the normal distribution of the school use variables. Three
statements were considered with respect to whether trauma-informed assessments
enabled students to receive more appropriate interventions and opportunities. For the 3-

item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .81 (n = 92). It was positive and greater than .70;
therefore, it provided good support for internal consistency reliability (Leech et al.,
2015). The three items were combined to create an appropriate intervention and
opportunities scale for further analysis (Table 8).
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for Appropriate Interventions and Opportunities Scale Items
Appropriate interventions and
opportunities scale items N M SD Skew
TI assessments allowed your child to receive
more appropriate interventions. 92 1.89 1.07 0.24
TI assessments increased educational
opportunities for your child.
92 2.30 1.23 0.53
TI assessments resulted in more appropriate
classroom interventions.
92 2.59 1.36 0.25
Note. Ratings based on a Likert scale: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither agree
nor disagree, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly disagree.
School confidence scale. I calculated reliability statistics in order to test the
normal distribution of the school use variables. Twelve statements were considered with
respect to parents’ confidence in the school’s ability to meet the needs of their IA
student. For the 12-item scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .95 (n = 86). It was positive
and greater than .70; therefore, it provided good support for internal consistency
reliability (Leech et al., 2015). The 12 items were combined to create a school
confidence scale for further analysis (Table 9).

Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for School Confidence Scale Items (N = 86)
School confidence scale items M SD Skew
My child is included in school activities. 2.20 1.24 1.20
School provided my student with an appropriate IEP. 2.29 0.91 0.38
My child’s teacher provides support in the classroom for my
child. 2.30 0.99 0.52
Interventions align with my child’s IEP. 2.34 0.94 0.68
My child feels safe at school. 2.35 1.38 0.71
School provides appropriate assessments. 2.50 0.97 0.13
School honors and fulfills my child’s IEP or 504. 2.52 1.34 0.51
I am pleased with the services my child receives. 2.55 0.97 0.28
I am happy with how the school meets my child’s needs.
2.60 0.99 0.23
The school supports my child’s needs. 2.67 1.38 0.56
The school follows through on what they say. 2.77 1.30 0.49
My child is important to their school. 2.80 1.44 0.45
Association Between the Scales
Descriptive statistics were run in order to test the normal distribution of the five
scales. The skewness of the scales is reported in Table 10. From the descriptive
statistics, skew can be examined. “If the skewness is more than +1.0 or less than -1.0
the distribution is markedly skewed” (Leech et al., 2015, p. 22). If this is the case, it
would mean that “one tail of the frequency distribution is longer than the other and if the
mean and median are different, the curve is skewed” (Leech et al., 2015, p. 22). From
the data I can see that most of the variable scales have a skewness between -1.0 and

1.0, but the neuropsychological assessment use scale (see Table 4), shows skewness
for the items “Provided an accurate assessment” to be 1.61 and “Recommendations
matched what I felt my child needed” to be 1.57. These two items are considered
nonnormal distributions. However, Leech et al (2015) state, “there are several ways to
check this assumption in addition to checking the skewness value. If the mean, median
and mode, are approximately equal, then you can assume that the distribution is
approximately normally distributed” (p. 34). In the case of these two items, the means
are 2.45 and 2.56, respectively; the medians are 2.0 for each item and the mode is 2 for
each item. This would meet the criteria laid out by Leech et al. Although these items are
skewed, the t tests and ANOVAs were sufficiently robust so that I was able to proced
with the analysis. That said, it is important to note that there should be some caution
with the interpretations as one of the items was moderately skewed.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for Five Scales
Scale n M SD Skew
School use scale 134 3.12 0.98 0.26
Neuro. assessment use scale 76 2.48 0.76 0.28
Conf. in T-I assessment scale 196 2.79 0.79 0.17
Appropriate interv. and oppr. scale 170 3.58 1.93 0.19
School confidence scale 162 2.41 0.91 0.19
Correlations were run for the five scales. Two relationships were statistically
significant. One was the association between the confidence in trauma-informed
assessment scale and the school use scale. The direction of the correlation was
positive. This means school/district assessments were correlated to confidence in

trauma-informed practices. The second was confidence in TI scale versus appropriate
intervention scale. The direction was positive, which means confidence in TI was
correlated to appropriate interventions. These intercorrelations were significant at the p
=.01 level, where N = 81 (school use scale = 0.72, confidence in TI scale = 0.39). (See
Table 11.)
Table 11
Intercorrelations for the Five Scales (N = 81)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
School use scale -- 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.72**
Neuro. assessment scale -- 0.04 0.12 -0.06
Confidence in TI scale -- 0.39** 0.16
Appropriate intervention scale -- 0.11
School confidence scale --
* p < .05; ** p < .01

Dr. Mora's Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessments

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (17)

Similaire à Dr. Mora's Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessments

Similaire à Dr. Mora's Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessments (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Dr. Mora's Parent Perceptions of Trauma-informed Assessments