Convergent Validity of Infant/Toddler Developmental Progress Monitoring Tools

  • Kere Hughes-BeldingEmail author
  • Gayle J. Luze
  • Ji-Young Choi
Original Paper



Using progress monitoring data to make effective and timely decisions in early intervention (EI) requires high quality assessment. Infant/toddler individual growth and development indicators (I/T IGDIs) have been developed to be brief, reliable and engaging progress monitoring tools that are sensitive to change over short time periods (Greenwood et al. in J Early Interv 33:254–267, 2011.


The current study examined the convergent validity of IGDIs in three developmental areas: the early communication indicator, early problem solving indicator (EPSI), and the early movement indicator (EMI), with standardized criterion measures. In addition, growth patterns in the current study of children receiving EI services were examined.


One hundred twenty-three children along with their service provider practitioners (N = 50) participated in the study. Practitioners administered IGDIs with children on their regular caseloads; data were examined for comparison with criterion measures and growth patterns.


Significant relationships were found between I/T IGDIs and corresponding domains on the Battelle Developmental Inventory-2nd edition and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-2nd edition. Linear and quadratic growth trajectory patterns from the current study resembled those of comparable samples from prior studies, where available.


Results supported the convergent validity of these I/T IGDIs with established criterion measures. Growth trajectory patterns for key skills and total scores were similar to those in prior studies, where available, with a few exceptions. Growth trajectory patterns for the EPSI and EMI with children from EI programs were demonstrated for the first time and supported hypothesized patterns.


Progress monitoring Early intervention Assessment Home visiting 



This research was funded by a Grant from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education (R324A070248). We would like to thank Juniper Gardens Children’s Project for collaborating on this project and use of the IGDI website resources.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the current study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable research standards.


  1. Bagnato, S. (2005). The authentic alternative for assessment in early intervention: An emerging evidence-based practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 17–22. Scholar
  2. Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley scales of infant development—II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2013). Response to intervention: Conceptual foundations for the early childhood field. In V. Buysee & E. S. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 3–23). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  4. Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C., Walker, D., Anderson, R., Howard, W., & Carta, J. (2011). Effects of web-based support on early head start home visitors’ use of evidence-based intervention decision making and growth in children’s expressive communication. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field, 13, 121–146. Scholar
  5. Carta, J., Greenwood, C., Walker, D., & Buzhardt, J. (2010). Using IGDIs: Monitoring progress and improving intervention for infants and young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  6. Deno, S. L. (1997). Whether thou goest… Perspectives on progress monitoring. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 77–99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2007). Toward an operational definition of evidence-based practice (Winterberry research perspectives, v.1, n.1). Morganton, NC: Winterberry Press.Google Scholar
  8. Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2016). Outcomes measurement: Instrument crosswalks. Retrieved November 30, 2017 from
  9. Feinberg, E., Silverstein, M., Donahue, S., & Bliss, R. (2011). The impact of race on participation in part C early intervention services. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 32(4), 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Folio, M. R., & Fewell, R. R. (2000). The peabody developmental motor scales (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  11. Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2008). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenwood, C. R., Buzhardt, J., Walker, D., McCune, L., & Howard, W. (2013). Advancing the construct validity of the early communication indicator (ECI) for infants and toddlers: Equivalence of growth trajectories across two early head start samples. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 743–758. Scholar
  13. Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & McConnell, S. (2011). Advances in measurement for universal screening and individual progress monitoring of young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 254–267. Scholar
  14. Greenwood, C., Carta, J., Walker, D., Hughes, K., & Weathers, M. (2006a). Preliminary investigations of the application of the early communication indicator (ECI) for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 178–196. Scholar
  15. Greenwood, C., Luze, G., Cline, G., Kuntz, S., & Leitschuh, C. (2002). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in movement for infants and toddlers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 143–157. Scholar
  16. Greenwood, C. R., & McConnell, S. R. (2011). JEI guidelines for manuscripts describing the development and testing of an assessment instrument or measure. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D., & Buzhardt, J. (2010). The early communication indicator for infants and toddlers: Early head start growth norms from two states. Journal of Early Intervention, 32, 310–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D., Carta, J., & Higgins, S. (2006b). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in the cognitive abilities of children 1 to 4 years old: The early problem-solving indicator. School Psychology Review, 35, 535–551.Google Scholar
  19. Greenwood, C. R., Ward, S., & Luze, G. J. (2003). The early communication indicator (ECI) for infants and toddlers: What it is, where it’s been, and where it needs to go. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3, 383–388. Scholar
  20. Kuntz, S. (2001). Caregiver assessment of movement skills–Gross motor. Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS.Google Scholar
  21. Kwok, O. M., Underhill, A. T., Berry, J. W., Luo, W., Elliott, T. R., & Yoon, M. (2008). Analyzing longitudinal data with multilevel models: An example with individuals living with lower extremity intra-articular fractures. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53, 370–386. Scholar
  22. Landry, S. H., Anthony, J. L., Swank, P. R., & Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness of comprehensive professional development for teachers of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luze, G., Linebarger, D., Greenwood, C., Carta, J., Walker, D., Leitschuh, C., et al. (2001). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in the expressive communication of infants and toddlers. School Psychology Review, 30, 383–406.Google Scholar
  24. McConnell, S. R., Wackerle-Hollman, A. K., Roloff, T. A., & Rodriguez, M. (2015). Designing a measurement framework for response to intervention in early childhood. Journal of Early Intervention, 36, 263–280. Scholar
  25. Newborg, J. (2004). Battelle developmental inventory (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scales, second edition, survey forms manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  27. Van Der Heyden, A. M. (2005). Intervention-driven assessment practices in early childhood/early intervention: Measuring what is possible rather than what is present. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Der Heyden, A. M., Snyder, P. A., Broussard, C., & Ramsdell, K. (2008). Measuring response to early literacy intervention with preschoolers at risk. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walker, D., Hart, B., Linebarger, D., & Parsley, K. (1998). Caregiver communication measure (CCM). Unpublished manuscript. Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development. Juniper Gardens Children’s Project. Kansas City: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  30. Weschler, D. (1989). The Weschler preschool and primary scales of intelligence-revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  31. Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1992). PLS-3: Preschool language scale-3. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Development and Family StudiesIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations