v

Update

Battelle Developmental Inventory

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

n 1986, Congress passed Public Law 99-457, which provided incentives

for states to develop early childhood intervention programs for qualified
infants and toddlers from birth through 2 years of age and their families.
The law later became known as the Individuals With Disabilities Educa-
tion Act (IDEA),1 and, with the 1997 amendments, the early intervention
program became Part C of the Act.

Part C of IDEA defines the terms “evaluation” and “assessment” as they relate
to early intervention programs. “Evaluation” means procedures used to
determine a child’s initial and continuing eligibility for services. Eligibility
criteria are defined by each state, but they typically include documentation of
delay in one or more areas of development listed in the federal law, including
cognitive, adaptive (self-help), physical (eg, gross and fine motor), commu-
nication, and social-emotional development. “Assessment” is defined as ongo-
ing procedures to identify a child’s strengths and needs, and the services
required to meet those needs. This is the process of program planning.

Evaluation requires what Kirshner and Guyatt referred to as a “discriminative

index,” which distinguishes “between individuals or groups on an underlying
dimension when no external criterion or gold standard is available for
validating these measures.”2 Measures useful for determining a child’s eligi-
bility for services are those that can be used to differentiate between children
who have developmental delays and children who do not have such delays.3
Discriminative measures include test items that distinguish between children
of varying ages, such as stacking blocks or jumping down from a step.
Although such information is can be useful for determining whether a child
has a developmental delay, knowledge that a child can or cannot perform
such test items often is not useful for program planning purposes. Program
planning often requires identification of goals specific to an individual,
particularly when intervention is unlikely to enable a child to “catch up” with
typically developing peers.3

Key Words: Battelle Developmental Inventory, Early intervention, Pediatrics, Testing.

[Berls AT, McEwen IR. Battelle Developmental Inventory. Phys Ther. 1999;79:776 –783.]
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Abbey Tyner Berls

Irene R McEwen

776 Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999

 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
The Battelle
Developmental

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

Inventory is useful
Another purpose of measurement is what Kirshner and Administration
Guyatt referred to as “evaluation.” They defined evalua- for determining Examiners can adminis-
tion as a measure of “the magnitude of longitudinal ter the items for each
change in an individual or group on the dimension of children’s eligibility domain separately, or
interest.”2 Although progress toward individual goals is they can test all 5
usually the most appropriate measure of progress for for services and domains of develop-
individual children,3 early intervention programs must ment. This aspect of the
measuring change
implement program-based outcome studies that look at BDI is useful if different
longitudinal changes in children and families receiving longitudinally for team members evaluate
services.4 different domains of
program-based development. A physical
One tool that has been used for both determining therapist, for example,
children’s eligibility for services and measuring change studies. might administer items
longitudinally for program-based studies is the Battelle in the motor domain, an
Developmental Inventory (BDI).5 The BDI was devel- occupational therapist
oped in 1984 and is both norm-referenced and criterion- might administer the adaptive items, a speech-language
referenced. It is a comprehensive test of development pathologist might administer the communication items,
that evaluates the 5 domains of development listed in and a teacher might administer the personal-social and
Part C of IDEA: cognitive, adaptive (self-help), motor, cognitive items.
communication, and personal-social development. Each
of the domains is further divided into subdomains, The BDI has 3 administration formats: structured admin-
which can be scored separately. istration, observation, and interviews with parents or other
sources. The authors provide detailed instructions for the
In addition to covering the 5 areas of development listed structured administration procedure, making it, in our
in the law, an advantage of the BDI is that it covers an opinion, the most clear-cut format to administer and score,
age range from birth to 8 years, which is a wider range followed by observation and then the interview approach.6
than that of many other tests that can be used with Another feature of the structured administration format
infants. The wide age range facilitates longitudinal com- that sets the BDI apart from other tools is that it allows
parisons of the same measure over a longer period of examiners to make specific adaptations for children with
time than is possible with most other tests. disabilities when needed. It also allows some deviation from

AT Berls was a student in the physical therapist professional education program at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma
City, Okla, at the time this article was written. She is currently Physical Therapist, Educational and Developmental Intervention Services, Germany.

IR McEwen, PhD, PT, is Presbyterian Health Foundation Presidential Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center, PO Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190 (USA) ([email protected]). Address all correspondence to Dr McEwen.

Concept, research design, and writing were provided by Berls and McEwen.

This work was supported, in part, by a personnel preparation grant (#H029G60186) from the US Department of Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services. The article does not, however, necessarily reflect the policy of that office, and official endorsement should
not be inferred.

© 1999 by the American Physical Therapy Association.

Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999 Berls and McEwen . 777
the exact words if the child does not understand the Standardization
instructions. The standardizing process of the BDI consisted of testing
a norming sample of 800 children, with approximately
The availability of 3 test formats increases the likelihood 100 children (50 male and 50 female) at each 1-year age
that children receive the highest possible score for all level from birth to 8 years.5 Geographically, 75% of the
skills they can perform. If a child does not perform well children lived in urban areas and 25% lived in rural
or refuses to perform activities during the structured areas. The sample was 84% white and 16% minorities,
administration format, the examiner may ask the child’s primarily African-American and Hispanic-American chil-
parents or teachers whether the child can perform dren. There was no difference in scores when gender or
certain tasks. If the primary interest is in identifying all race was considered in this sample.
that the child is able to do, not just what the child is
willing to do in a testing situation, then the 3 test formats The developers did not control for socioeconomic status
are a benefit.7 From the point of standardization, the 3 (SES), but the manual states that test sites were 75%

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

formats are problematic. Depending on the extent to urban and 25% rural and represented a wide range of
which the examiner uses one format or another, the socioeconomic statuses.5 No data were provided on the
results could differ. Data obtained through parent occupations, income, or educational levels of the
report, for example, are not always consistent with parents.
results from standardized administration.8
The size of the sample also was potentially limited. The
The entire BDI takes approximately 11⁄2 hours to admin- sample consisted of 50 children each in the 0- to 5-, 6- to
ister, which is similar to other comprehensive develop- 11-, 12- to 17-, and 18- to 23-month-old age ranges and
mental assessment tools. The scoring process is compli- 100 children in the 24- to 35-month-old range, for a total
cated, particularly establishing and scoring basal levels.9 of 300 children in the 0- to 35-month-old range. Partic-
Bailey et al9 found that teachers took longer than 30 ularly at these lower age ranges, because young chil-
minutes to score the test and made many errors. Simple dren’s development can be so rapid, the wide age spans
math errors were most common (45% of teachers), can cause age-related discontinuities.10 If, for example, a
followed by errors in establishing a basal level (43%) and child’s age is just short of a cutoff level, the child would
scoring items below the basal level (29%). Only 14.5% of appear to be functioning at a higher level than if the
the teachers made no errors. Based on the results of same child were tested a few days later and performed in
their study, the authors recommended that people who the same way. Examiners should be cautious when
administer the BDI receive training in administration testing young children who are close to the age cutoff
and scoring of the test. levels to avoid inappropriate eligibility and intervention
decisions.10
The BDI is administered by first finding a basal level,
which is the age level at which the child gets full credit Another problem with BDI scoring is that procedures
for all items in a subdomain. Subdomains are specific recommended to calculate extreme scores of children
skill areas that make up a domain, such as the locomotor who have severe and profound disabilities do not appear
subdomain of the motor domain. The ceiling is the level to be adequate. Bailey et al9 noted that the tables for
of item difficulty at which a child would get a score of 0. calculating deviation quotients (DQs) do not provide
The items are scored on a 3-point system. A score of 2 DQs less than 65. If children’s scores are lower than 65,
indicates the child’s response meets the specified crite- the test manual gives a method to extrapolate a DQ.
ria. A score of 1 means the child attempted the item but Using this method, however, some children can receive
did not meet all criteria. A score of 0 is given when the a negative DQ. A child 22 months of age, for example,
response is incorrect or there is no response or oppor- who received a raw score of 20 for the motor domain
tunity to respond. This system of scoring allows examin- would have a DQ of 245, if calculated using the formula
ers to determine whether children display emerging in the manual. The test manual does not explain why
skills on which they can build. The examiner’s manual negative scores occur or how they should be interpreted
includes chapters on scoring and interpretation that or reported.11 Researchers could remedy this situation
show how to apply BDI scores.5 The examiner can by obtaining norms at the lower levels to avoid the need
calculate developmental quotients, which can then be to extrapolate scores.
expressed as age equivalents (in months). It is possible to
profile domain and subdomain scores and compare Reliability
strengths and weaknesses in various areas. These profiles The BDI test manual reports the standard error of
can be used to help determine whether a child’s deficit measurement (SEM), test-retest reliability, and interra-
is due to weaknesses in all areas of development or in ter reliability.
one specific area such as fine motor skills.

778 . Berls and McEwen Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999
 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Standard Error of Measurement items from other developmental tests. When selecting
The SEM refers to the “band of confidence around a items, Newborg et al5 stated that they considered the
child’s test score.”6 The SEM for all domains listed in the importance of the items in the functioning of the child’s
test manual was between 2.12 (6 –11 months) and 9.05 everyday life, support for the items in the literature, the
(48 –59 months).5 The smaller the SEM, the more sure educational practitioner’s acceptance of the skill as a
an examiner can be that the score a child obtains on the milestone in a child’s development, and whether thera-
test is close to the child’s true score. The first BDI pists and educators could intervene on the item. In 1980,
manual, published in 1984, included an error in direc- a pilot study of 500 children was conducted to refine the
tions for calculating of the SEM. Instead of the SEM, the BDI items.5 When 75% of the children passed an item,
manual provided directions for calculating the standard the authors assigned that item to that particular devel-
error of the mean. The authors corrected this error in opmental age level. The authors supported the content
the 1988 printing of the BDI manual, so it is important validity of the developmental nature of the BDI with
to know which publication of the test is being used.6,8 t-test comparisons between age groups on parts of the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

BDI.6,8,24 Keyser and Sweetland7 stated that these age
Test-Retest Reliability comparisons support the argument that the BDI is
The developers of the BDI determined test-retest reli- developmental in nature, thus supporting the content
ability by retesting 183 children of the 800 children in validity of the BDI.
the sample within 4 weeks of the initial test. Test-retest
reliability of BDI total scores was between .90 (at 72– 83 Construct Validity
months) and .99 (at 6 –11 months, 12–17 months, 24 –35 Construct validity “reflects the ability of an instrument to
months, and 36 – 47 months).5 For all reliability and measure an abstract concept, or construct.”23 The devel-
validity data, the BDI manual states only that correlation opers of the BDI based predictions for construct validity
coefficients were calculated. The authors did not identify on “general developmental theory.”5 They hypothesized
the statistic(s) used, which makes interpretation of the that a child who performs well in one domain should
data somewhat difficult. perform well in all domains. Correlations were high and
positive for total BDI scores against 30 subdomain cate-
Interrater Reliability gories, providing support for the belief that a child’s
Newborg et al5 examined interrater reliability by having performance should be consistent across domains. The
a second rater score the tests of 148 children. They correlations were between .56 for the total BDI score and
found interrater reliability to be high, ranging from .90 the muscle control subdomain and .99 for the total BDI
(at 72– 83 months) to .99 (at 18 –23 months and 36 – 47 score and the motor domain and receptive subdomain.
months). Subsequent studies of interrater reliability The lower correlation between the total BDI scores and
correspond well to these results. McLean and col- the muscle control subdomain was attributed to an item
leagues11 found interrater reliability to be .928 when ceiling, in which all children received the highest possi-
testing children younger than 30 months with sensory ble score for all items at 18 months of age, which
impairments, developmental delay, physical disabilities, restricted the size of the correlation.
and multiple other disabilities. Snyder et al12 tested 78
children with severe disabilities and, using generalizabil- Factorial validity was described by Newborg et al5 as a type
ity theory, estimated internal consistency reliability to be of construct validity. They measured factorial validity
.85 or higher. through a factor analysis of the pilot study data and
found that the factor structure differs depending on the
Validity age of the child. Intercorrelations among domains
Validity refers to the degree to which a meaningful showed that 5 BDI domains are more accurate for
interpretation can be inferred from a test.13 Researchers children over the age of 2 years. For children under 24
have conducted studies of the content validity,5,7 con- months of age, it appears there are 3 general factors
struct validity,5,12 concurrent validity,5,14 –20 and predic- (which the manual does not specify), so it is important to
tive validity17,21,22 of the BDI. administer the entire BDI to children under 2 years of
age. For children above 24 months of age, the factor
Content Validity analysis supports the structure of the 5 domains,
Content validity refers to how adequately a test covers “all although the communication and cognitive domains
parts of the universe of content and reflects the relative overlap.8,44
importance of each part.”23 The BDI test manual does
not include data supporting the selection of the items Snyder et al12 tested the construct validity of the BDI.
included in the test and the manner in which the items The subject sample consisted of 78 children with disabil-
were grouped into domains. Newborg et al5 explained ities tested over a 5-year period. The results of the study
that they selected the 341 items from a pool of 4,000 suggested that examiners should be cautious about

Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999 Berls and McEwen . 779
obtaining and reporting isolated scores in the social- age. The low correlation between the 2 tests suggests that
emotional, cognitive, and communication domains they measure different elements of development.
because they appear not to reflect unique developmen-
tal domains. Other researchers have related BDI scores with scores of
other tests. Guidubaldi and Perry17 evaluated 124 chil-
Concurrent Validity dren in kindergarten with the BDI, Draw-A-Person
Concurrent validity is “studied when the measurement to Test,32 PPVT-R,28 Kohn Social Competence Scale,33 Sells
be validated and the criterion measure are taken at and Roff Scale of Peer Relations,34 Bender Visual-Motor
relatively the same time (concurrently), so they both Gestalt Test,35 Metropolitan Readiness Test,36 Stanford-
reflect the same incident of behavior.”23 Although the Binet Intelligence Scale,27 Vineland Social Maturity
developers of the BDI did not describe their studies well, Scale,25 and Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT)37 to
the initial correlations between the 10 major BDI com- measure each of the 5 domains. The results generally
ponents and the Vineland Social Maturity Scale25 and indicated significant relationships between the tests and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

the Developmental Activities Screening Inventory26 were the individual domains of the BDI, although some of the
high (.78 –.93). The correlations between the Stanford- correlations were not high. They found the strongest
Binet Intelligence Test27 and the BDI were from .40 to and most consistent relationships between the cognitive,
.61, but the developers of the BDI did not intend the personal-social, and communication domains of the BDI
BDI to be used as a measure of intelligence. The and the other tests.
correlations between the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test-Revised (PPVT-R)28 and the BDI were relatively Smith18 tested 30 typically developing preschool chil-
high, from .36 (adaptive domains) to .83 (total scores).5 dren aged 3 years 11 months to 6 years 2 months using
the BDI cognitive domain, the Stanford-Binet Intelli-
Since the development of the BDI in 1984, several gence Scale,27 and the Kaufman Assessment Battery.38
studies have provided support for the concurrent validity Pearson product-moment correlations among the 3 tests
of the BDI scores with the Vineland Adaptive Scales29 ranged from .41 (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale com-
and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development.30 Johnson posite score versus BDI cognitive domain score) to .63
and colleagues14 studied 67 children with motor delays (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale composite score ver-
and a mean age of 18.6 months. Pearson product- sus Kaufman Assessment Battery mental processing com-
moment correlation coefficients for the Vineland Adap- posite score). The BDI cognitive domain total score was
tive Scales, the Bayley Scales, and the BDI ranged from lower than the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and
.48 to .81 and were reported to be statistically significant, Kaufman Assessment Battery composite scores, but
but the error associated with the correlations could be Smith concluded that the BDI measures similar con-
quite high because of the low correlations. These cor- structs. Lidz19 compared the BDI cognitive domain
relations were not as consistently high as those found scores and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale scores of 32
by McLean et al,11 whose sample consisted of children African-American children aged 3 to 5 years. Lidz found
with disabilities under the age of 30 months. Pearson that more than one half of the children had a lower DQ
product-moment correlations between the BDI and the on the BDI cognitive domain than on the Stanford-Binet
Bayley Scales ranged from .75 to .92, and correlation Intelligence Scale.
between the BDI and the Vineland Adaptive Scales
ranged from .73 to .95. Boyd et al15 found Pearson Mott20 investigated the concurrent validity of the BDI
product-moment correlations of .27 to .95 between the communication domain using the PPVT-R,28 the Pre-
Bayley Scale and BDI scores of children younger than 30 school Language Scale-Revised (PLS-R),39 and the Ari-
months. The results were supported by another study of zona Articulation Proficiency Scale-Revised (AAPS-R),
70 children with disabilities under 30 months of age in which are tools that test children’s speech and language.
which correlations between the Bayley Scale and BDI Mott did not specify the statistic used, but found corre-
scores, using canonical analyses, ranged from .65 to lations supporting the concurrent validity of the total
.95.31 These studies of concurrent validity support the communication domain and the expressive language
use of the BDI as an appropriate assessment tool for subdomain of the BDI. The correlation between the
infants with known or suspected disabilities. PPVT-R score and the BDI total communication domain
and expressive communication subdomain scores was
Although most studies support the concurrent validity of .60. The correlation between the PPVT-R score and the
the BDI with the Bayley Scales, Gerken et al16 found a BDI total score was .66. The correlation between the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 2.03 PLS-R score and the BDI total communication domain
between the BDI and the Bayley Mental Scale in a score was .81, and the correlation between the AAPS-R
sample of 34 midwestern children aged 3 to 30 months score and the BDI expressive communication subdo-
who lived with their mothers, who were 15 to 21 years of

780 . Berls and McEwen Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999
 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
main score was .68. These correlations for the total Behl and Akers22 investigated the ability of the BDI to
communication score and the expressive communica- predict later achievement with a sample of children with
tion subdomain score support using the BDI for testing or at-risk for developmental delays using the BDI and the
children who have general speech and language prob- Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement-Revised (WJR-
lems. The BDI receptive communication subdomain did ACH).42 The authors found low correlations between
not correlate with any of the language measures, so it is later achievement and BDI scores at age 1 year. When
important to use the entire communication domain children were tested at age 3 years and older, correla-
when testing children who have suspected speech tions remained stable; for example, Pearson product-
problems. moment correlations between BDI-computed DQ total
scores at ages 3, 4, 5, and 6 years and corresponding
Tests that are discriminative “emphasize the ability to WJR-ACH Broad Knowledge scores at ages 9, 10, 11, and
distinguish between individuals or groups. These tools 12 years were .67, .72, .75, and .82, respectively.22 The
can lead to the identification of children who are not results of this study suggest that BDI scores of children

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

functioning within age-appropriate or performance- aged 3 years and older consistently predict Woodcock-
based expectations.”40 After reviewing the studies that Johnson Test of Achievement-Revised scores at 6 to 12
investigated concurrent validity, the BDI appears to be years of age. The BDI does not demonstrate good
an appropriate discriminative tool for the following predictive validity for children younger than 18 months
groups of children: children who are typically develop- of age.
ing from birth to 8 years of age,5,18 children with motor
delays with a mean age of 18 months,14 children with Battelle Developmental Inventory
disabilities under the age of 30 months,11,15 and children Screening Test
with suspected language disorders aged 35 to 60 The Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test
months.20 Examiners should be cautious when evaluat- (BDIST)5,24,43 is available for more rapid administration
ing and interpreting the BDI results for African-Ameri- than the BDI, but it has drawbacks. The BDIST consists
can children aged 3 to 5 years and children who have of 96 items that were taken from the parent BDI and can
severe and profound disabilities.9,14 Gerken et al16 cau- be administered in 10 to 30 minutes, depending on the
tioned examiners of all children aged 3 to 30 months age of the child. The test developers list the purposes of
who are at risk for developmental delay, but other the BDIST as general screening of preschool and kin-
research11,14,15,31 supports using the BDI with this group dergarten children, monitoring children’s progress,
of children. identifying strengths and weaknesses of children to
determine which children would benefit from a compre-
Predictive Validity hensive assessment, and making placement and eligibil-
Predictive validity refers to the ability of a measure to be ity decisions.
used to predict some future event. If the BDI has good
predictive validity, then it provides a basis on which Kramer and Conoley43 identified several problems with
decisions are made by predicting outcomes and future the BDIST. Instead of norming the BDIST, the authors
behaviors.23 Three studies have addressed the predictive used the norms and reliability and validity data derived
validity of the BDI. Guidubaldi and Perry17 investigated from the BDI, so it is not possible to know whether the
the predictive validity of the BDI with 124 kindergarten BDIST yields valid and reliable data. Standards for
children who they retested in the first grade using the screening tests of sensitivity and validity indicate that a
WRAT.37 They did not specify the statistic used, but sensitivity of approximately 80% and a specificity of
found correlations between .30 and .62, thus moderately approximately 90% are preferable to detect children
supporting the predictive validity of kindergarten BDI with disabilities correctly (sensitivity) and to detect chil-
scores for performance in first grade, as measured by the dren who do not have disabilities (specificity).44 – 46 Glas-
WRAT. Merrell and Mauk21 used the BDI and the Social coe and Byrne47 studied 89 children aged 7 to 70 months
Skills Rating System (SSRS)41 to determine the predic- to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the BDIST.
tive validity of the BDI as a measure of future social- They found that the BDIST correctly identified 72% of
behavioral development and developmental outcomes. the children with disabilities, indicating that it has good
The children entered the study at ages 2 to 5 years and sensitivity. They found specificity to be 76%, which
were retested at a 2- to 3-year interval. The authors found indicates the BDIST overidentifies children who do not
relationships between the BDI and SSRS to be very weak have disabilities. They also found the BDIST time-
(between negative coefficients and .25). They concluded consuming to administer, but they did not report mean
that interpretations and decisions based on BDI results times of administration. McLean and colleagues48 stud-
are limited in the area of future social-behavioral devel- ied 65 children aged 7 to 72 months. They found that
opment. The authors did not states the statistic used to the BDI accurately identified only 13 of the 35 subjects
calculate the correlation coefficients. without disabilities, with 22 children referred for further

Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999 Berls and McEwen . 781
testing. This finding demonstrates a specificity lower 11 McLean M, McCormick K, Bruder MB, Burdg NB. An investigation
than 50%. Sensitivity was much higher. Of the 30 of the validity and reliability of the Battelle Developmental Inventory
with a population of children younger than 30 months with identified
children with disabilities, 29 children were referred for handicapping conditions. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood.
further testing. Little research has been conducted with 1987;11:238 –246.
the BDIST, but the work that has been done suggests
12 Snyder P, Stephen L, Thompson B, et al. Evaluating the psychomet-
that its use results in over-referral of children for further ric integrity of instruments used in early intervention research: the
testing. Another problem is that the reliability and Battelle Developmental Inventory. Topics in Early Childhood Special
validity of this 96-item version of the BDI cannot be Education. 1993;13(2):216 –232.
assumed. 13 Task Force on Standardization for Measurement in Physical Ther-
apy. Standards for tests and measurements in physical therapy practice.
Conclusions Phys Ther. 1991;71:589 – 622.
Studies generally support the reliability of data obtained 14 Johnson LJ, Cook MJ, Kullman AJ. An examination of the concur-
with the BDI and its content, construct, and concurrent rent validity of the Battelle Developmental Inventory as compared with

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

validity. Its predictive validity is better for older children the Vineland Adaptive Scales and the Bayley Scales of Infant Develop-
ment. Journal of Early Intervention. 1992;16:353–359.
than for younger children. The strengths of the BDI and
the comprehensiveness of the domains it measures are 15 Boyd RD, Welge P, Sexton D, Miller JH. Concurrent validity of the
reasons that it has been used by many researchers as a Battelle Developmental Inventory: relationship with the Bayley Scales
in young children with known or suspected disabilities. Journal of Early
tool for longitudinal studies, determining developmen- Intervention. 1989;13:14 –23.
tal trajectories and outcomes, and classifying children.
In early intervention programs, the BDI appears to be a 16 Gerken KC, Eliason MJ, Arthur CR. The assessment of at-risk infants
and toddlers with the Bayley Mental Scale and the Battelle Develop-
good discriminative measure to determine children’s mental Inventory: beyond the data. Psychology in the Schools. 1994;31:
eligibility for services based on degree of developmental 181–187.
delay, and it appears to have promise as a tool to
17 Guidubaldi J, Perry JD. Concurrent and predictive validity of the
measure change over time for population-based longitu- Battelle Development Inventory at the first grade level. Educational and
dinal studies. The relatively long administration time, Psychological Measurement. 1984;44:977–985.
however, could be a drawback for repeated measure- 18 Smith DK. Young Children’s Performance on Three Measures of Ability.
ments across a population of children. If administration ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 281874; 1987.
time is a problem, the BDIST might be of value, but not
19 Lidz CS. Concurrent Validity of the Cognitive Domain of the Battelle
until research has demonstrated that it yields reliable Developmental Inventory in Relation to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test,
and valid data. Fourth Edition for Urban African-American Low SES Preschool children. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350344; 1992.
References 20 Mott SE. Concurrent validity of the Battelle Developmental Inven-
1 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub tory for speech and language disordered children. Psychology in the
L 105–17, 20 USC, 1400 et seq. Schools. 1987;24:215–220.
2 Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing 21 Merrell KW, Mauk GW. Predictive validity of the Battelle Develop-
health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36. mental Inventory as a measure of social-behavioral development for
3 Harris SR, McEwen IR. Assessing motor skills. In: McLean ML, Bailey young children with disabilities. Diagnostique. 1993;18(3):187–198.
D, Wolery M, eds. Assessing Infants and Toddlers with Special Needs. 22 Behl DD, Akers JF. The use of the Battelle Developmental Inventory
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E Merrill; 1996:305–333. in the prediction of later development. Diagnostique. 1996;21(4):1–16.
4 Guralnick MJ. Second-generation research in the field of early 23 Portney LG, Watkis MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications
intervention. In: Guralnick MJ, ed. The Effectiveness of Early Intervention. to Practice. East Norwalk, Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1993.
Baltimore, Md: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co; 1997:3–20.
24 Conoley JC, Kramer JJ, Murphy LL, eds. The Tenth Mental Measure-
5 Newborg J, Stock JR, Wnek L, et al. Battelle Developmental Inventory. ments Yearbook. Lincoln, Neb: The Buros Institute of Mental Measure-
Allen, Tex: DLM; 1988. ments; 1989.
6 Sheehan R, Snyder S. Battelle Developmental Inventory and the 25 Doll EA. Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Circle Pines, Minn: American
Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test [monograph]. Diag- Guidance Service; 1965.
nostique. 1989 –1990;15:16 –30.
26 Dubose RF, Langley MB. Developmental Activities Screening Inventory.
7 Keyser DJ, Sweetland RC, eds. Test Critiques. Vol 2. Kansas City, Mo: Hingham, Mass: Teaching Resources Corp; 1977.
Westport Publishers Inc; 1985.
27 Terman LM, Merrill MA. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. 3rd rev ed.
8 McLinden SD. An evaluation of the Battelle Developmental Inven- Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin Co; 1960.
tory for determining special education eligibility. Journal of Psychoedu-
cational Assessment. 1989;7:66 –73. 28 Dunn LM, Dunn LM. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle
Pines, Minn: American Guidance Service; 1981.
9 Bailey DB Jr, Burchinal MR, McWilliam RA. Age of peers and early
childhood development. Child Dev. 1993;64:848 – 862. 29 Sparrow SS, Balla DA, Cicchetti DV. Vineland Adaptive Behavior
Scales. Circle Pines, Minn: American Guidance Service; 1984.
10 Boyd RD. What a difference a day makes: age related discontinuities
and the Battelle Developmental Inventory. Journal of Early Intervention. 30 Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York, NY: The
1989;13:114 –119. Psychological Corp; 1969.

782 . Berls and McEwen Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999
 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
31 Sexton D, McLean M, Boyd RD, et al. Criterion-related validity of a 40 Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH. Pediatric functional outcome
new standardized developmental measure for use with infants who are measures. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am. 1991;2:689 –723.
handicapped. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development.
41 Gresham FM, Elliott SN. Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines,
1988;21:16 –24.
Minn: American Guidance Service; 1990.
32 Harris DB. Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. New York, NY: Harcourt,
42 Woodcock RW, Johnson MB. Psycho-Educational Battery: Part II.
Brace & World; 1963.
Chicago, Ill: Riverside Publishing Co; 1989.
33 Kohn M. Competence and Symptom Factors in the Pre-school Child. New
43 Kramer JJ, Conoley JC. The Eleventh Mental Measurements Yearbook.
York, NY: William Alanson White Institute; 1968.
Lincoln, Neb: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements; 1992.
34 Sells S, Roff M. Peer Acceptance-Rejection and Personality Development in
44 Barnes KE. Preschool Screening: The Measurement and Prediction of
Children. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1967.
Children at Risk. Springfield, Ill: Charles C Thomas, Publisher; 1982.
35 Koppitz E. The Bender Gestalt Test for Young Children. New York, NY:
45 Lichtenstein R, Ireton H. Preschool Screening: Identifying Young Chil-
Grune and Stratton; 1975.
dren With Developmental and Education Problems. Boston, Mass: Allyn and
36 Hildreth GH, Griffiths HL, McGauvran ME. Metropolitan Readiness Bacon; 1984.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/79/8/776/2857780 by guest on 10 September 2021

Test. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World; 1964.
46 Wolery M. Assessing Infants and Preschoolers With Handicaps. Colum-
37 Jastak JF, Bijou SW, Jastak SR. Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilming- bus, Ohio: Charles E Merrill; 1989:119 –143.
ton, Del: Jastak Associates; 1978.
47 Glascoe FP, Byrne KE. The usefulness of the Battelle Developmental
38 Kaufman AS, Kaufman N. Kaufman Assessment Battery. Circle Pines, Inventory Screening Test. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1993;32:273–280.
Minn: American Guidance Service; 1983.
48 McLean M, McCormick K, Baird S, Mayfield P. Concurrent validity
39 Zimmerman IL, Steiner VG, Pond RE. Preschool Language Scale. Rev of the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test. Diagnostique.
ed. New York, NY: The Psychological Corp; 1979. 1987;13:10 –20.

Physical Therapy . Volume 79 . Number 8 . August 1999 Berls and McEwen . 783