Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment
http://jpa.sagepub.com

Test Review: Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–
Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment
Craig A. Albers and Adam J. Grieve
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2007; 25; 180
DOI: 10.1177/0734282906297199

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jpa.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jpa.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

Test Reviews Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment
Volume 25 Number 2
June 2007 180-198
Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development– © 2007 Sage Publications
Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. http://jpa.sagepub.com
hosted at
DOI: 10.1177/0734282906297199 http://online.sagepub.com

The Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition (Bayley-III) is a revi-
sion of the frequently used and well-known Bayley Scales of Infant Development–Second
Edition (BSID-II; Bayley, 1993). Like its prior editions, the Bayley-III is an individually
administered instrument designed to measure the developmental functioning of infants and
toddlers. Other specific purposes of the Bayley-III are to identify possible developmental
delay, inform professionals about specific areas of strength or weakness when planning a
comprehensive intervention, and provide a method of monitoring a child’s developmental
progress. The Bayley-III is appropriate for administration to children between the ages of 1
month and 42 months (although norms extend downward to age 16 days). The revision of the
Bayley was specifically driven by eight goals: (a) update the normative data, (b) develop addi-
tional scales to fulfill requirements by federal (i.e., the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004) and state laws regarding the five major areas of development for
early childhood assessment from birth through 3 years of age, (c) strengthen the instrument’s
psychometric properties, (d) improve the treatment utility of the instrument, (e) simplify
administration procedures, (f) update item administration, (g) update administration materi-
als, and (h) maintain the qualities of previous Bayley editions (Bayley, 2006b).

Description of the Bayley-III

Scales
The most significant revision to the Bayley-III is the development of five distinct scales
(as compared to three scales in the BSID-II) to be consistent with areas of appropriate
developmental assessment for children from birth to age 3. Whereas the BSID-II provided
Mental, Motor, and Behavior scales, the Bayley-III revision includes Cognitive, Language,
Motor, Social-Emotional, and Adaptive Behavior scales.

Cognitive. The Cognitive scale of the Bayley-III contains 72 out of the 178 items that
were previously included in the Mental scale of the BSID-II. Additionally, 19 new items
were added to the Cognitive scale, resulting in a total of 91 items. Forty-five of the items
from the Mental scale were completely removed from the Bayley-III, whereas the remain-
ing items either remained the same or were slightly modified and moved to a different scale
(i.e., 27 items were moved to the Expressive Communication subtest of the Language scale,
23 items were moved to the Fine Motor subtest of the Motor scale, and 11 items were
moved to the Receptive Communication subtest of the Language scale).

Language. Recognizing the significance of assessing a child’s language development, the

Bayley-III added a Language scale consisting of Receptive and Expressive Communication

180

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

 Test Reviews 181

subtests. Items in the Receptive Communication subtest are designed to provide information
regarding the child’s auditory acuity and ability to understand and respond to verbal stimuli.
This subtest includes 11 items (some slightly modified) from the BSID-II Mental scale and an
additional 38 new items. The Expressive Communication subtest assesses the individual’s abil-
ity to vocalize, name pictures and objects, and communicate with others. This subtest contains
27 items from the BSID-II (some slightly modified) and 21 new items.

Motor. The Bayley-III Motor scale, consisting of Fine Motor and Gross Motor subtests,
is similar to the Motor scale of the BSID-II. The Fine Motor subtest contains 66 items (18
items are new) and is purported to measure skills associated with eye movements, percep-
tual-motor integration, motor planning, and motor speed. The Gross Motor subtest contains
72 items (4 items are new) and is designed to measure movements of the limbs and torso.

Social-Emotional. The Behavior Rating scale in the BSID-II was replaced by the
Greenspan Social-Emotional Growth Chart: A Screening Questionnaire for Infants and
Young Children (Greenspan, 2004) and is intended to be completed by the child’s primary
caregiver. For each of the 35 items, which measure emotional development and related
behaviors, the respondent selects one of six ratings: 0 (can’t tell), 1 (none of the time), 2
(some of the time), 3 (half of the time), 4 (most of the time), or 5 (all of the time).

Adaptive Behavior. A significant addition to the Bayley-III is the inclusion of the

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–Second Edition (ABAS-II; Harrison & Oakland,
2003; see Burns, Meikamp, & Suppa, 2005, and Rust & Wallace, 2004, for reviews of the
ABAS-II) as a measure of adaptive skills. By having the child’s primary caregiver complete
the ABAS-II, estimates of the child’s functioning in the areas of Communication,
Community Use, Health and Safety, Leisure, Self-Care, Self-Direction, Functional Pre-
Academics, Home Living, Social, and Motor can be obtained. (Children younger than 1
year do not receive scores in the areas of Community Use, Functional Pre-Academics, or
Home Living.) Within the ABAS-II, caregivers indicate the extent to which the child per-
forms the adaptive skills when needed. Response options include 0 (is not able), 1 (never
when needed), 2 (sometimes when needed), or 3 (always when needed). The inclusion of
the ABAS-II facilitates a more comprehensive assessment as caregivers are more involved
in completing the ABAS-II than they would be in completing the BSID-II.

Materials
Whereas many of the Bayley-III stimulus materials will look familiar to a user of the
BSID-II, the current edition contains additional items such as a bank, a bear, a bracelet, a con-
necting block set, a lacing card, memory cards, a set of seven ducks, and a wider stepping
path. Some notable items not contained in this edition include the map, sugar pellets, jump-
ing rope, pull toy, and separate visual stimulus cards. Examiners must provide more materi-
als than were required for a BSID-II administration, including facial tissue, five small coins,
food pellets, several blank 3 × 5 in. index cards, safety scissors, and blank unlined white
paper. The stimulus book of this edition is more user-friendly in that it contains a built-in

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

182 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

easel that folds low to the table, which aids in assessing an examinee’s responses and allows
for ease in switching between tasks. A wider stepping path is included and is considered an
improvement over the previous edition, providing a more developmentally appropriate
guide for assessing gross motor skills. As with the BSID-II, the stimulus materials of this
edition are bright, colorful, and engaging for infants and toddlers. The test kit is less bulky
and more portable than its predecessor, with all stimulus items and manuals fitting into a
suitcase with wheels and a pull handle. However, the kit does not contain the plastic divid-
ing sections for the stimulus materials, and some examiners may find it more difficult to
navigate through the materials efficiently.
The Bayley-III includes the option of using a Windows-based scoring software and a
PDA administration product. This allows an examiner to administer and score the Bayley-
III with an electronic handheld device and eliminates the need for a record form and
manual for administration. Although this option may increase efficiency and decrease bulk-
iness, examiners should be very familiar with the operation of the software so that stan-
dardized administration is not violated.

Administration and Scoring Procedures

Examiners who administer the Bayley-III should be familiar with and have training in
developmental assessment and interpretation. The age range for which the measure is designed
requires that the examiner have the ability to establish and maintain rapport with infants, tod-
dlers, and caregivers. Because of these factors, examiners should have completed relevant
graduate training or professional experiences that include formal individual assessment prepa-
ration and supervision so that the measures can be administered consistent with the Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education,
1999). To gain an accurate impression of an infant or toddler’s optimal performance and to
avoid negative behavioral reactions to separation, a caregiver (generally a parent) is encour-
aged to remain in the testing room for the duration of the Bayley-III administration. However,
caregivers should not encourage, influence, or interfere with item administration to the point
that standardization procedures are violated.
Administration times range from approximately 50 min for children aged 12 months and
younger to 90 min for children aged 13 months and older. Consistent with the BSID-II, the
examinee’s chronological age (adjusted for prematurity if necessary) corresponds to a start-
ing point, designated by a letter A through Q. This letter should be used to determine the start-
ing item for the Cognitive, Language, and Motor scales. Each scale has an identical
requirement for establishing basal and ceiling levels: The first three items administered must
be correct (examinees receive credit for unadministered items below the basal), and scoring
of the scale should discontinue when the examinee receives no credit on five consecutive
items. In the event that a basal is not established with the first three items administered, the
examiner must reverse to the previous starting point and continue administration until the
ceiling criterion is met. Although it may be necessary to reverse to an earlier starting point on
one scale, the examiner should use the original age-determined starting letter to determine the
starting point for subsequent scales. No items should be readministered during the course of

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

 Test Reviews 183

a testing session; however, if a correct response was not initially elicited but is observed
later in a session (e.g., during the Gross Motor subtest or some items on the Expressive
Communication subtest), some items may then be scored as correct. Scoring for every item
is either 1 (credit) or 0 (no credit). The item scoring in this edition is more straightforward
and manageable than in the previous edition, and it allows for a more efficient method of
calculating a total raw score. Additionally, examiners should be aware of specific behaviors
that are indicative of delayed or atypical development (referred to as developmental risk
indicators) within the areas of social behavior, attention, motor and movement, hearing,
and vision. Explained in detail in the technical manual (Bayley, 2006b), these indicators
suggest the need for additional assessment.
The examiner’s record form contains items for the Cognitive, Language, and Motor scales,
with a separate questionnaire that contains items for both the Social-Emotional and Adaptive
Behavior scales. This questionnaire is to be completed by the primary caregiver. The exam-
iner’s record form provides item titles, materials needed for each item, scoring criteria, and
space for noting additional comments about an examinee’s responses. Similar to the BSID-II,
some items are part of a series that use the same materials, and the examinee can demonstrate
varying levels of proficiency. For example, for the pegboard series, Item 47 requires the child
to place at least one peg two or more times in the same or different hole or holes. The peg-
board should also then be used to administer Item 55, in which the child receives credit for
placing all six pegs in the pegboard within 70s. Examiners should score such series items con-
currently, so that it is not necessary to switch away from and back to a stimulus material.
However, a child may pass a series item that falls beyond an established ceiling. In this case,
the series item should not be included in the total raw score, but it should be qualitatively
noted. Series items are specified as such, and the additional items contained in the series are
specified on the far left side of each page of the record form. The record form is quite color-
ful, with each color corresponding to a specific scale. The colors not only are aesthetically
pleasing but also function to separate the Cognitive, Language, and Motor scales for the
examiner who may need to switch between scales while administering the complete test. Item
materials and scoring criteria are specified in the record form, but examiners should closely
reference the administration manual (Bayley, 2006a). The administration manual provides
clear guidelines for item instructions, stimulus layout, child positioning, and so on. The for-
mat for referencing the administration manual in this edition is similar to that in the BSID-II,
but pictures of the necessary item materials are not provided with the corresponding items in
the administration section of the manual. Therefore, examiners must be able to differentiate
the proper stimuli without the aid of a picture included with the administration procedures.
The manual does, however, provide a page with pictures of the test items and their corre-
sponding names, so that an examiner can familiarize himself or herself with the names of the
stimulus materials prior to administering the test. One notable improvement in the Bayley-III
administration manual is that it is ring bound, which allows examiners to remain on a desired
page without concern that the manual might accidentally close. Although the length of the
administration section may seem daunting, the instructions to the examiner are necessary for
proper administration of this measure, and the apparent complexity reduces with increased
familiarity with and experience in administering the Bayley-III to infants and toddlers of var-
ious ages.

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

184 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

A variety of scores across scales and subtests are available. Raw scores from the
Cognitive scale, which does not contain separate subtests, can be converted to a scaled
score (M = 10, SD = 3), which can then additionally be converted to a composite score
equivalent (M = 100, SD = 15). Scaled scores are available for the Receptive and Expressive
Communication subtests of the Language scale, which when combined form the Language
scale composite score (M = 100, SD = 15). The same procedure holds for the Fine and
Gross Motor subtests of the Motor scale. Across all three of these primary domains, the
normative sample is divided into 10-day increments (e.g., 2 months 6 days through 2
months 15 days). Raw scores for Cognitive, Language, and Motor subtests translate to
scaled scores based on 10-day increments up to age 5 months 16 days, at which point norms
are based on 1-month intervals (e.g., 5 months 16 days to 6 months 15 days, 35 months 16
days to 36 months 15 days). The highest two age ranges are normed on the basis of 3-month
intervals (36 months 16 days to 39 months 15 days). Thus, depending on the age of the
child, normative scaled scores are derived on the basis of 10-day, 1-month, or 3-month
intervals. Percentile ranks, confidence intervals (90% and 95% levels), growth score equiv-
alents, and developmental age scores in months and days are available.
The scoring for the Social-Emotional Scale is straightforward. The summed raw score is
converted to a scaled score (M = 10, SD = 3), which can additionally be converted to a com-
posite score equivalent (M = 100, SD = 15). The normative sample for the Social-Emotional
domain is divided into nine age categories (by months: 0-3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-14, 15-18, 19-24, 25-
30, and 31-40). A Sensory Processing score can also be calculated. The administration manual
provides additional guidance regarding conducting supplemental analyses within this scale.
The Adaptive Behavior scale follows the scoring criteria of the ABAS-II. Raw scores for
each of the 10 skill areas are converted to scaled scores (M = 10, SD = 3). From these scaled
scores, a General Adaptive Composite (GAC) score (M = 100, SD = 15) can be obtained.
Additional composite scores are available for a Conceptual Adaptive domain (Communi-
cation, Functional Pre-Academics, and Self-Direction skill areas), Social Adaptive domain
(Leisure and Social skill areas), and Practical Adaptive domain (Community Use, Home
Living, Health and Safety, and Self-Care skill areas). The normative sample for the Adaptive
Behavior scale is in 1-month increments for children aged 11 months and younger, 2-month
increments for children aged 13 months to 23 months, and 3-month increments for children
aged 24 months to 42 months. Percentile ranks and confidence intervals (90% and 95% lev-
els) are available to assist in interpretation.

Technical Adequacy

Test Construction
Bayley (2006b) describes the construction of the Bayley-III as being informed by the
body of research in child development conducted since the publication of the BSID-II in
1993. However, many concepts of early cognition have been retained in child development
and are still very much applicable to the current revision; these include play (e.g., Bruner,
1972; Piaget, 1952; Singer, 1973; Vygotsky, 1978), information processing (e.g., Bornstein
& Sigman, 1986; Fagan, 1970), and number concepts (e.g., Gelman & Tucker, 1975; Wynn,

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

 Test Reviews 185

1990). Consequently, the Bayley-III retains such activities as pretend play, novelty prefer-
ence, habituation, and number ordering. Given that these older concepts are combined with
concepts derived from relatively recent studies of information processing and preverbal
intelligence (e.g., Colombo & Frick, 1999; Dougherty & Haith, 1997; Kail, 2000; Schatz,
Kramer, Ablin, & Matthay, 2000), it is clear that the Bayley-III is based on an eclectic the-
oretical foundation.
As indicated earlier, a significant number of items from the BSID-II were either removed
or modified for the current version. Bayley’s (2006b) justification for these changes
includes a desire to remove items that were (a) difficult to administer or score, (b) unpleas-
ant for the child, (c) redundant with other items, (d) potentially biased toward a racial or
ethnic group, and (e) lacking in value. To create new and suitable items, a comprehensive
process was undertaken that included development and feedback by content experts to
ensure appropriateness of the items, tryout phases, and numerous input points from experts
in their respective areas. This process, which is outlined in the technical manual, included
(a) a conceptual development phase, which included reviews by an advisory panel, mea-
surement consultants, and international experts, followed by focus groups and surveys of
experts and examiners; (b) a pilot phase; (c) a national tryout phase; (d) a minipilot; (e) a
standardization phase; and (f) an assembly and evaluation phase.
Considering that the primary intent of the Bayley-III is to identify children experiencing
developmental delay and not to specifically diagnose a disorder, the floor and ceiling of the
subtest and total test appear to be adequate. As would be expected from an adaptive behav-
ior measure (i.e., ABAS-II) that was developed independently of the Bayley-III, the floor
for the Adaptive Behavior scale extends downward to a composite score of 40 (extending
upwards to a score of 160), whereas the remaining Bayley-III floor composite scores are
relatively higher (Cognitive, 55-145; Language, 47-153; Motor, 46-154; Social-Emotional,
55-145). One area that was not improved, however, are the subtest floor scores for the
youngest children in the sample (i.e., those aged 16 to 25 days). Bell and Allen (2000) indi-
cated that in the BSID-II, a 1-month-old child would need to receive only one raw score
point to earn a standard score of 60 on the Mental scale. This same child would have earned
a standard score of 65 on the Bayley-III Cognitive scale.

Standardization Sample
The standardization sample for the Cognitive, Language, and Motor scales included
1,700 children aged 1 month to 42 months, divided into 17 separate age groups, with 100
individuals in each group. This sample was reported to be representative of the October
2000 U.S. Bureau of the Census population survey data in terms of parent education level,
race or ethnicity, and geographic region. Only children who were born at 36 to 42 weeks
gestation and who were considered to be typically developing were included in the stan-
dardization sample, although children with mental, physical, or behavioral difficulties were
later added to constitute approximately 10% of the total sample. The standardization sam-
ple for the Social-Emotional scale was collected during an earlier tryout phase of the
Bayley-III and included 456 children. Although a relatively small sample, it appears to be
sufficiently representative of the U.S. population. Finally, the standardization of the

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

186 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Adaptive Behavior scale (i.e., ABAS-II) occurred during the development and standardization
of the ABAS-II, independently of the Bayley-III standardization process. According to infor-
mation included in the Bayley-III technical manual, the standardization sample of the ABAS-II
included 1,350 children aged 0 months through 71 months. To account for the extended age
range, norms were truncated to reflect the 42-month age limit of the Bayley-III.

Reliability
Cognitive, Language, and Motor. Evidence for internal consistency reliability for the
Cognitive, Language, and Motor composites and subtest scales was obtained on the nor-
mative sample using the split-half method corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula cor-
rection. It was not specified how test halves were divided. The average reliability
coefficients were calculated using Fisher’s z transformation. Scale composite average reli-
ability coefficients ranged from .91 (Cognitive) to .93 (Language), whereas subtest average
reliability coefficients ranged from .86 (Fine Motor subtest) to .91 (Expressive
Communication and Gross Motor subtests). Within specific subtests, the lowest reliability
coefficients (e.g., .71) were obtained in the younger age groups (e.g., 1-5 months) within
the Receptive and Expressive Communication subtests. The average reliability coefficients
for the special groups included in the sample were all greater than .94. Test-retest stability
was determined by readministering the Bayley-III to 197 children, who were tested on two
occasions separated by anywhere from 2 to 15 days, with a mean retest interval of 6 days.
Corrected correlation coefficients ranged from .67 (Fine Motor subtest) to .80 (Expressive
Communication subtest) with the group aged 2 to 4 months and from .83 (Gross Motor sub-
test) to .94 (Expressive Communication subtest and Language composite) for the group
aged 33 to 42 months. Across all ages, average stability coefficients were .80 or higher.

Social-Emotional. Reliability indices from the Greenspan Social-Emotional Growth

Chart standardization process are included in the Bayley-III technical manual. Internal con-
sistency was estimated using coefficient alpha, with coefficients ranging from .83 to .94 for
social-emotional items and .76 to .91 for the sensory processing items. No stability or inter-
rater reliability indices for the Greenspan Social-Emotional Growth Chart were provided.

Adaptive Behavior. Evidence for internal consistency reliability for the Adaptive
Behavior scale was obtained during the ABAS-II standardization process. Internal consis-
tency was estimated using coefficient alpha, with average reliability coefficients being cal-
culated using Fisher’s z transformation. Average reliability coefficients across each of the
skill areas, adaptive domains, and the GAC ranged from .79 to .98. Test-retest stability was
estimated using a sample of 207 children, with intervals ranging from 2 days to 5 weeks
(M = 12 days). The mean stability coefficients for the GAC and Adaptive Behavior domains
generally were .80 or higher, whereas coefficients were slightly lower for specific skill
areas. Overall, stability increased as the age of the child increased. Interrater reliability was
estimated with a sample of 56 children who were each rated by their two parents. The GAC
interrater reliability coefficient was .82, adaptive domain coefficients averaged .79, and the
adaptive skill area coefficients averaged .73.

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

 Test Reviews 187

Validity
Confirmatory factor analysis of the subtests of the Cognitive, Language, and Motor
scales supported a three-factor model across all ages of the 1,700-child standardization
sample, except for the youngest age group (0-6 months), in which a two-factor model was
also supported. The technical manual suggests that the applicability of both a two-factor
and a three-factor model to the youngest group is likely an indicator that language and cog-
nition are undifferentiated at that age. No factor analysis data regarding the Social-
Emotional or Adaptive Behavior scales are provided in the Bayley-III technical manual.
The technical manual also describes a series of validity-related studies conducted with
other cognitive, intellectual, language, motor, social-emotional, and adaptive behavior mea-
sures. The correlation between the Bayley-III Cognitive composite and BSID-II Mental
Index score was .60, which was also the correlation between the Motor composite scores
on both measures. The correlation between the BSID-II Behavior Rating Scale and the
Bayley-III Social-Emotional composite was only .38, which was attributed to the new for-
mat and items that were added. The relatively moderate correlations between other com-
posite and subtest scores were attributed to new scoring criteria, clarifications of previous
scoring ambiguities, and changes to the floor and ceiling.
Relatively high correlations were obtained between the Wechsler Preschool and Primary
Scale of Intelligence–Third Edition (Wechsler, 2002) Verbal, Performance, and Full-Scale
scores and the Bayley-III Cognitive (.72-.79) and Language composites (.71-.83). The
Preschool Language Scale–Fourth Edition (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2002) Auditory
Comprehension and Expressive Communication subscales were moderately correlated with
the Bayley-III Language composite (.51-.71). Moderate correlations were obtained between
the Bayley-III Motor composite and the Peabody Developmental Motor Skills–Second
Edition (Folio & Fewell, 2000) Motor quotients (.49-.57) and between the ABAS-II and the
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale–Interview Edition (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984)
domain scores and composite score (.58-.70). The technical manual also details numerous
special group studies, including studies examining the Bayley-III with children with Down
syndrome, pervasive developmental disorders, cerebral palsy, specific language impairment,
developmental delay, asphyxiation at birth, and prenatal alcohol exposure; children small for
gestational age; and children born premature or with low birth weight.

Commentary and Recommendations

As part of a comprehensive evaluation, the Bayley-III appears to continue setting the stan-
dard for early childhood assessment, as the majority of the stated goals of the revision process
appear to have been attained. The first goal was to update the normative data, which was
accomplished with a representative standardization sample of 1,700 students. The second
goal was to develop additional scales so that the areas of cognitive, communication, physical,
social-emotional, and adaptive behavior development are examined. In this regard, the
Bayley-III contains some necessary and needed improvements over the BSID-II. Specifically,
the inclusion of a separate Language scale provides helpful information to a professional in
assessing the development of a child. Although it does not completely remove the demand

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

188 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

for language in the Cognitive scale, this edition does a commendable job of separating cog-
nitive ability from expressive and expressive language development. The addition of the
ABAS-II enhances the quality of information provided by the Bayley-III and also increases
the role of the primary caregiver in the assessment process. Finally, specification of fine and
gross motor assessment can be more useful to a professional in formulating intervention
strategies than was the inclusive Motor scale of the BSID-II.
The third goal was to strengthen the instrument’s psychometric properties. Although the
reliability of scores could be improved for younger children (i.e., those aged 0 to 6 months),
this is typical of all instruments intended to be used with a population in which develop-
mental scores tend to be highly variable. Even with this relative weakness, all of the psy-
chometric properties meet minimal criteria, with the majority of scores being strong.
Questions remain, however, regarding floor appropriateness, particularly for lower per-
forming and extremely young children. This presents difficulties if classification based on
specific cutoff scores is the ultimate outcome of the child’s performance on the Bayley-III;
however, if the instrument is being used as one component of a multifaceted evaluation or
as an indicator to determine whether additional evaluation is warranted, the potential floor
inadequacy is not as problematic.
Whether the treatment utility of the Bayley-III is enhanced, which is the fourth goal, has
yet to be determined. Within an early intervention model, the Bayley-III would appear to
have utility for identifying individuals in need of additional assessment and, likely, inter-
vention; however, no evidence is presented to show predictive validity and accuracy or how
intervention provision is improved as a result of a Bayley-III administration. This is clearly
an area in need of additional research, relating not only to the Bayley-III but also across all
areas connected to assessment (e.g., Nelson-Gray, 2003).
The next three goals related to the simplification of administration procedures, updated
item administration, and updated administration materials; all appear to have been met as
the test materials are as engaging as, if not slightly more appealing than, the materials in
the BSID-II, with some more developmentally appropriate items (i.e., wider walking tape,
different-sized balls) and more realistic picture stimuli. Whereas the administration and
technical materials were in one manual and described as a weakness in the BSID-II (e.g.,
Nellis & Gridley, 1994), the Bayley-III divides these into two separate manuals. The test
kit is no longer a hindrance to transport, and scoring procedures (i.e., 1 vs. 0) are much
more user-friendly and less ambiguous than in the BSID-II. Although materials are not as
clearly divided within the kit and pictures are not provided alongside administration pro-
cedures in the manual, the overall construction and usability of the Bayley-III is an
improvement over the previous edition.
The final goal was to maintain the qualities of previous Bayley editions. By maintaining
a variety of age-appropriate tasks, establishing the psychometric properties of the revision,
and incorporating new developmental realms that were in need of improvement in prior edi-
tions, the Bayley-III will likely maintain its status as the most frequently used individually
administered measure of infant and toddler development.
Craig A. Albers
Adam J. Grieve
University of Wisconsin–Madison

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

 Test Reviews 189

References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on
Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:
Authors.
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development–Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Bayley, N. (2006a). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition: Administration manual.
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Bayley, N. (2006b). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition: Technical manual. San
Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Bell, S., & Allen, B. (2000). Test review of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Second Edition. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 185-195.
Bornstein, M. H., & Sigman, M. D. (1986). Continuity in mental development from infancy. Child
Development, 57, 251-274.
Bruner, J. S. (1972). Nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 27(8), 687-708.
Burns, M. K., Meikamp, J., & Suppa, C. H. (2005). Review of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System:
Second edition. In R. A. Spies & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska.
Burns, M. K., Meikamp, J., & Suppa, C. H. (2005). Review of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System:
Second edition [Electronic version]. Available from the Buros Institute of Mental Measurements’ Web site:
http://www.unl.edu/buros (Original work published in R. A. Spies & B. S. Plake, Eds., The sixteenth men-
tal measurements yearbook, 2005).
Colombo, J., & Frick, J. (1999). Recent advances and issues in the study of preverbal intelligence. In
M. Anderson (Ed.), The development of intelligence (pp. 43-71). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Dougherty, T. M., & Haith, M. M. (1997). Infant expectations and reaction times as predictors of childhood
speed of processing and IQ. Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 146-155.
Fagan, J. F. (1970). Memory in the infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 9, 217-226.
Folio, R. M., & Fewell, R. R. (2000). Peabody Developmental Motor Scales–Second Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Gelman, R., & Tucker, M. F. (1975). Further investigations of the young child’s conception of number. Child
Development, 46, 167-175.
Greenspan, S. I. (2004). Greenspan Social-Emotional Growth Chart: A screening questionnaire for infants and
young children. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Harrison, P. L., & Oakland, T. (2003). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–Second Edition. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
Kail, R. (2000). Speed of information processing: Developmental change and links to intelligence. Journal of
School Psychology, 38(1), 51-61.
Nellis, L., & Gridley, B. E. (1994). Review of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development–Second Edition.
Journal of School Psychology, 32, 201-209.
Nelson-Gray, R. O. (2003). Treatment utility of psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 521-531.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
Rust, J. O., & Wallace, M. A. (2004). Test review of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–Second Edition.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 367-373.
Schatz, J., Kramer, J. H., Ablin, A., & Matthay, K. K. (2000). Processing speed, working memory and IQ: A devel-
opmental model of cognitive deficits following cranial radiation therapy. Neuropsychology, 14(2), 189-200.
Singer, J. L. (1973). The child’s world of make-believe: Experimental studies of imaginative play. New York:
Academic Press.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale–Interview edition.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008

190 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155-193.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002). Preschool Language Scale–Fourth Edition. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Swerdlik, M. E., Swerdlik, P., Kahn, J. H., & Thomas, T. (2003). Psychological
Processing Checklist. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
DOI: 10.1177/0734282906295403

The Psychological Processing Checklist (PPC) is a teacher-completed rating scale pub-

lished by Multi-Health Systems in North Tonawanda, New York. The checklist was published
in 2003 along with a technical manual (Swerdlik, Swerdlik, & Kahn, 2003). The 35-item PPC
purports to measure difficulties with psychological processing among children in kinder-
garten through fifth grade. More specifically, the scale represents the authors’ attempt to
provide a norm-referenced measure of behaviors associated with psychological processing
deficits that is consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of
1997 definition of a learning disability.
Thus, the scale attempts to provide information useful in distinguishing learning disabili-
ties from other conditions and to provide ideas relevant to the design of interventions and
modifications to address difficulties associated with processing and learning. PPC items are
based on information processing theory and neuropsychological theories, which propose that
learning difficulties and disabilities are associated with deficits in psychological processing.
The PPC provides scores that are based on the teacher’s observations of the student’s
processing abilities. The PPC can be completed by the student’s general education teacher,
special education teacher, and other qualified professionals (e.g., reading specialist, speech-
language pathologist, educational diagnostician) who spend time with the student on a
regular basis. The authors encourage the use of multiple raters to gather more than one per-
spective. The authors also suggest that appropriate raters are those professionals who have
known the student for at least 6 weeks and who have had sufficient opportunities to observe
the student in the classroom. As is typical with normative rating scales, greater familiarity
with the student will likely result in more meaningful and reliable ratings.
The PPC includes 35 items, each describing a student behavior. The teacher responds to
the items by choosing one of four labels (never, seldom, sometimes, often) based on the fre-
quency with which the teacher observes the behavior. The administration and scoring format
is similar to that of the familiar Conners’ Rating Scales–Revised (Conners, 1997). Raters
write directly on the form, and then the examiner opens the carbon copy form to reveal the
scoring grid, onto which the examiner transfers numeric responses to the different columns
representing the PPC scales. The numbers in each column are then summed to obtain raw
scores for each of the six scales, and these six raw scores are summed to obtain the total score.
Raw scores are transferred to a profile form, which provides the corresponding T-scores
(mean of 50, standard deviation of 10) and percentiles for the six scales and total score.
Separate profiles and score conversions are provided for male and female students because of

Downloaded from http://jpa.sagepub.com by Carmen Costea on October 2, 2008