See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237628076

Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers Technical

Manual

Article · January 2007

DOI: 10.1037/t15185-000

CITATIONS READS
51 6,123

3 authors, including:

Mary Mackrain Paul Lebuffe

9 PUBLICATIONS   196 CITATIONS   
Aperture Education
34 PUBLICATIONS   650 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mary Mackrain on 24 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Devereux Early Childhood
Assessment for Infants
and Toddlers
Technical Manual
by Gregg Powell, Mary Mackrain, and Paul LeBuffe

Kaplan Early Learning Corporation

Lewisville, NC
 © 2007 The Devereux Foundation
All rights Reserved
Published by Kaplan Early Learning Corporation, Lewisville, NC
ISBN number 10: 0-88076-682-4
ISBN number 13: 978-0-88076-682-1
Item number: 14779
Printed in the USA
Preface
T his manual presents information on the development and
standardization of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants
and Toddlers (DECA-I/T), as well as the results of studies examining its
reliability and validity. This information is provided to help the user become
better informed about the strengths and proper uses of the DECA-I/T.
Complete information on the administration, scoring and interpretation of
the DECA-I/T may be found in the DECA-I/T User’s Guide.
Many individuals have contributed to the DECA-I/T. Their names may be
found in the acknowledgement section of the DECA-I/T User’s Guide.
The authors welcome feedback on the DECA-I/T as well as opportunities for
collaboration. They may be reached at the Devereux Early Childhood
Initiative of the Devereux Foundation.
444 Devereux Drive
Villanova, PA 19085
Telephone: 610/542-3109
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web Page: www.devereuxearlychildhood.org

i
Preface
Table of Contents ■ ■

Preface .....................................................................................................................................................................i
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................................iii
List of Tables and Figures ...........................................................................................................................v
Chapter 1: Development and Standardization ..................................................................................1
Development of the DECA-I/T Items ......................................................................................................1

National Standardization .............................................................................................................................2

Representativeness of the DECA-I/T Standardization Sample........................................................2

Age and Gender......................................................................................................................................3

Geographic Region .................................................................................................................................3

Race...........................................................................................................................................................4

Socioeconomic Status ..........................................................................................................................6

Organization of Items into Scales ............................................................................................................6
Norming Procedures.....................................................................................................................................10
T Scores ..........................................................................................................................................................11
Chapter 2: Reliability .................................................................................................................................. 13
Internal Reliability ......................................................................................................................................13

Standard Errors of Measurement ...........................................................................................................15

Test-Retest Reliability ...............................................................................................................................16

lnterrater Reliability...................................................................................................................................20

Stability of DECA-I/T Ratings ................................................................................................................23

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................25

iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 3: Validity........................................................................................................................................27
Content Validity ...........................................................................................................................................27

Criterion Validity .........................................................................................................................................28

Contrasted Groups............................................................................................................................. 29

Examination of Potential Adverse Impact on Minority Children ............................................31

Individual Prediction ..........................................................................................................................35

Construct Validity ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Convergent Validity ............................................................................................................................38

Protective Factors Study .................................................................................................................40

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................43

References .......................................................................................................................................................45

iv
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
Tables and Figures ■ ■

Tables
Table 1.1 DECA-I/T Standardization Sample Characteristics:
Age and Gender.............................................................................................................................3
Table 1.2 DECA-I/T Standardization Sample Characteristics:
Geographic Region and Age ........................................................................................................4

Table 1.3 DECA-I/T Standardization Sample Characteristics:

Geographic Region and Race ......................................................................................................5

Table 1.4 Rotated Factor Analysis Results for the DECA-I Scales..................................................8

Table 1.5 Rotated Factor Analysis Results for the DECA-T Scales .................................................9

Table 2.1a Internal Reliability (Alpha) Estimates for DECA-I Scales by Rater ............................14

Table 2.1b Internal Reliability (Alpha) Estimates for DECA-T Scales by Rater ...........................15

Table 2.2a Standard Errors of Measurement for the DECA-I Scale T Scores by Rater ...........16

Table 2.2b Standard Errors of Measurement for the DECA-T Scale T Scores by Rater ..........17

Table 2.3a Characteristics of the DECA-I Test-Retest Reliability Sample....................................17

Table 2.3b Characteristics of the DECA-T Test-Retest Reliability Sample ...................................18

Table 2.4a Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for DECA-I Scores Obtained

at a 24- to 72-Hour Interval...................................................................................................19

Table 2.4b Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for DECA-T Scores Obtained

at a 24- to 72-Hour Interval...................................................................................................19

Table 2.5a Characteristics of DECA-I Interrater Reliability Sample .............................................20

Table 2.5b Characteristics of DECA-T Interrater Reliability Sample..............................................21

Table 2.6a Interrater Reliability Coefficients for DECA-I Scores..................................................22

Table 2.6b Interrater Reliability Coefficients for DECA-T Scores .................................................22

Table 2.7a DECA-I Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores

and Standard Deviations—Parent Raters.............................................................................23

v
Tables and Figures
Table 2.7b DECA-I Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores
and Standard Deviations—Teacher Raters .........................................................................23

Table 2.7c DECA-T Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores

and Standard Deviations—Parent Raters.............................................................................24

Table 2.7d DECA-T Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores

and Standard Deviations—Teacher Raters .........................................................................25

Table 3.1a Characteristics of the DECA-I Validity Study Sample ...................................................29

Table 3.1b Characteristics of the DECA-T Validity Study Sample...................................................30

Table 3.2a Mean T Scores and Difference Statistics for DECA-I Validity Study .......................31

Table 3.2b Mean T Scores and Difference Statistics for DECA-T Validity Study......................32

Table 3.3a DECA-I Scale Scores: d-Ratios Comparing Minority

and Non-Minority Children.......................................................................................................33

Table 3.3b DECA-T Scale Scores: d-Ratios Comparing Minority

and Non-Minority Children.......................................................................................................34

Table 3.4a Actual and Predicted Group Membership for the DECA-I Validity Study .................36

Table 3.4b Actual and Predicted Group Membership for the DECA-T Validity Study ................37

Table 3.5 Convergent Validity Results (DECA and DECA-T) .............................................................39

Table 3.6 Sample Characteristics for the DECA-IT Protective Factor Study............................40

Table 3.7 Mean Temperament and Regulatory Index Scores for Risk and
Protective Factor Groups in DECA Protective Factor Study .........................................42

Figures
Figure 1.1 Poverty Level of DECA-I/T Sample.........................................................................................6

Figure 1.2 Infant Mean Total Raw Scores by Age.................................................................................10

Figure 3.1 Mean Temperament and Regulatory Index Scores for Risk and
Protective Factor Groups.........................................................................................................42

vi
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 1

Development and
Standardization
■ ■

Development of the DECA-I/T Items

A s with the original Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA)

(LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999) multiple approaches were used to develop the
initial set of items for the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants
and Toddlers (DECA-I/T).
First, we reviewed the literature on resilience and noted behavioral
descriptions of resilient children (Egeland, 1997; Gordon-Rouse, 1996;
Masten and Coatsworth, 1998; Werner and Smith, 1982, 1992, and 2001;
Werner, 1990 and 2000). During this process we reviewed existing
measures of infant and toddler social and emotional health.
We also conducted focus groups with parents and teachers of infants and
toddlers, early care and education professionals, and mental health profes-
sionals. In the focus group sessions, parents and professionals were asked
to describe the behaviors of children that “were likely to do well” or indi-
cated that the child was “doing well” in regards to social and emotional
health. Conversely, parents and early care and education professionals
were also asked to describe behaviors that indicated that the child was
“likely to have problems.” Behavioral descriptions were used to generate
rating scale items.
The items were written as directly observable behaviors requiring little or no
inference on the part of the observer. Careful attention was also paid to
potential psychometric qualities such as reliability and validity as well as
ease of use of the scales. Finally, throughout all phases of item development,
the reading level of the items and Rater directions were carefully considered
so that the overall readability of the text would be as easy as possible.
The item development phase resulted in a pool of 112 items, which served
as the starting point in the development of the DECA-I/T. By conducting
a pilot study in the spring of 2005 with 251 participants at 12 sites nation-
ally, it was possible to examine the usefulness of the initial set of items and

1
Development and Standardization
 their inter-relationships. Children with identified special needs (behavioral,
social, emotional) scored statistically significantly lower on protective factors
than those children who were not identified as having social emotional
concerns. There was also a statistically significant difference between infant
and toddler scores.
The results of the pilot study were used to prepare a form consisting of
68 items to be used in the national standardization study described below.

National Standardization
The DECA-I/T was standardized in a way to ensure the sample would
closely represent the United States population on important demographic
characteristics. The data collection procedures also ensured that a wide
variety of children were included for the generation of norms. We collected
data from a variety of settings across the United States. Infant and toddler
early care and education professionals from childcare settings provided the
teacher ratings and will be referred to in all tables as Teacher Raters. Parent
(and/or other family member) ratings were obtained not only from these
same settings, but also in response to recruitment efforts. To ensure the
confidentiality of their responses, parents who chose to participate were
able to: 1) place their completed rating form in a sealed envelope to be sent
to Devereux for processing or 2) anonymously fill out the standardization
form online. The online form was identical to the handwritten copy.

Representativeness of the DECA-I/T Standardization Sample

The DECA-I/T standardization sample consisted of 2,183 infants and
toddlers between 4 weeks and 3 years of age (45% infants and 55%
toddlers). For this sample an infant was defined as being from 4 weeks up
to 18 months and a toddler as being from 18 months up to 3 years of
age. Early care and education professionals provided ratings on 52% of
these children; parents provided ratings on the remaining 48% of the
children. As shown in Table 1.1, the DECA-I/T standardization sample
closely approximated the population of the United States with respect to
gender. The desired characteristics of the standardization sample were
based on the Statistical Abstract of the United States 2006 125th edition:
The National Data Book by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. In the tables that
follow, the total numbers of children included may not sum to 2,183 due
to missing data.

2
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 1.1

DECA-I/T Standardization Sample Characteristics:

Age and Gender
Males Females Unknown Total
Age n % n % n % n %

Infants (1-18 Months) 484 49.0% 483 48.9% 20 2.0% 987 45.2%
Toddlers (18-36 Months) 591 49.4% 595 49.7% 10 0.8% 1196 54.8%
Total Sample 1075 49.2% 1078 49.4% 30 1.4% 2183
U.S. % 51.0% 49.0%

Note. The U. S. population data are based on ”Resident Population, by Sex and Age: 2006 Table No. 16,” Statistical Abstract
of the United States 2006 125th edition: The National Data Book by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.

Age and Gender

Table 1.1 presents the numbers and percentages of infants and toddlers by
gender. The number of infants was 987 and the number of toddlers was
1,196. These results show that each age was sufficiently sampled. The data
also show that the percentages of males and females in the standardization
sample as a whole, as well as at each age, very closely approximated the
proportions of the U.S. population.

Geographic Region
We collected data from 99 sites in 29 states in the four geographic regions:
Northeast, Midwest, West, and South. Table 1.2 shows the numbers and
percentages of children for each age and the total sample for each of
the four geographic regions. On average, the regional distribution of the
DECA-I/T standardization sample was within 6% of the U.S. population for
children 4 weeks to 3 years old. These data show that the DECA-I/T
standardization sample closely approximated the regional distribution of
the U.S. population.

3
Development and Standardization
 Table 1.2

DECA-I/T Standardization Sample Characteristics:

Geographic Region and Age
Northeast Midwest West South Unknown Total
Age n % n % n % n % n % n %
Infants (1-18 Months) 165 16.7% 283 28.7% 230 23.3% 302 30.6% 7 0.7% 987 45.2%

Toddlers (18-36 Months) 243 20.3% 301 25.2% 275 23.0% 366 30.6% 11 0.9% 1196 54.8%

Total Sample 408 18.7% 584 26.8% 505 23.1% 668 30.6% 18 0.8% 2183
U.S. % 18.0% 21.8% 26.2% 33.9%

Note. The U. S. population data are based on “Resident Population, by Sex and Age: 2006 Table No. 34,” Statistical Abstract
of the United States 2006 125th edition: The National Data Book by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.

Race
Table 1.3 provides the DECA-I/T standardization sample composition by
geographic region and race. Based on information provided on the rating
forms, the children were classified according to the five major race
categories used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census: Native American,
Asian/Pacific Islander, African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian.
The DECA-I/T rating forms also allowed the Rater to describe the race
of the child as “Mixed Race” or “Other.”
The data in Table 1.3 indicate that the racial composition of the
total DECA-I/T standardization sample closely approximated that of
the U.S. population (total exceeds 100% due to some respondents making
multiple selections). Additionally, sample percentages within each region
were also similar to the actual population percentages found in each
geographic region.

4
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 1.3

DECA-I/T Standardization Sample Characteristics:

Geographic Region and Race
Asian
Native Pacific African Mixed Not Total

Development and Standardization

American Islander American Hispanic Caucasian Other Race Reported Sample
n Row % n Row % n Row % n Row % n Row % n Row % n Row % n Row % n Row % U.S. %

Northeast 2 0.5% 7 1.7% 55 13.5% 7 1.7% 307 75.2% 4 1.0% 23 5.6% 3 0.7% 408 18.7% 18.1%
Midwest 12 2.1% 1 0.2% 52 8.9% 24 4.1% 406 69.5% 11 1.9% 68 11.6% 10 1.7% 584 26.8% 21.8%
West 26 5.1% 8 1.6% 3 0.6% 116 23.0% 264 52.3% 9 1.8% 71 14.1% 8 1.6% 505 23.1% 26.2%
South 21 3.1% 8 1.2% 84 12.6% 180 26.9% 328 49.1% 9 1.3% 31 4.6% 7 1.0% 668 30.6% 33.9%
Not Reported 1 5.6% 0 0.0% 2 11.1% 3 16.7% 11 61.1% 0 0.0% 1 5.6% 0 0.0% 18 0.8%
Total 62 2.8% 24 1.1% 196 9.0% 330 15.1% 1316 61.7% 33 1.5% 194 8.9% 28 1.3% 2183

Adjusted Sample (w/o “Other”, “Mixed Race”, and “Not Reported”

Total 62 3.2% 24 1.2% 196 10.2% 330 17.1% 1316 68.3% 1928
U.S. % 2.2% 3.4% 16.2% 12.2% 71.3%

Note. The U. S. population data are based on “Resident Population, by Sex and Age: 2006 Table No. 22,” Statistical Abstract
of the United States 2006 125th edition: The National Data Book by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.

5
 Figure 1.1

Poverty Level DECA-I/T Sample

Living in Poverty

80.0%
71.1% 73.0%
70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%
28.9% 27.0%
30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Yes No

Sample Census

Socioeconomic Status
Determining the number of children receiving either subsidized childcare
or enrolled in TANF assessed the socioeconomic status of the DECA-I/T
standardization sample. Of the entire sample of over 2,183 children,
29% were either receiving subsidized childcare or public assistance. This
very closely approximates the 27% of infants and toddlers living in poverty
(Children’s Defense Fund, 2005). Figure 1.1 depicts the breakdown of the
DECA-I/T sample compared to Census Data (2006).

Organization of Items into Scales

Utilizing the standardization data set, we attempted to organize the
DECA-I/T items into statistically and logically derived scales. The Protective
Factor Scales were identified through the use of exploratory item factor
analysis. We applied this method to the entire set of protective factor
items. Careful examination of the factorial results suggested that no single
solution would work across the developmental age span and there needed
to be two forms (infant and toddler), which became the Devereux
Early Childhood Assessment for Infants (DECA-I) and the Devereux Early
Childhood Assessment for Toddlers (DECA-T).

6
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Next, we conducted a series of analyses to determine which items should
be deleted to obtain the best configuration of scales, for infants and toddlers
separately. We based the decisions to delete items on the following goals:
1) to identify the best factor solution from psychometric and interpretability
perspectives, 2) to shorten the two forms of the DECA-I/T as much as
possible without compromising breadth of coverage, and 3) to ensure
that the constructs are measured reliably by the scales. Although this left
anchor items common to both scales, it also permitted differing items that
were developmentally appropriate either for the infant or the toddler scale.
The final results of these analyses are provided in Table 1.4 for the infant
form and Table 1.5 for the toddler form.
The DECA-I/T Infant form (DECA-I) ended up with 33 items and the Toddler
form (DECA-T) with 36 items reflecting positive behaviors (strengths)
typically seen in resilient children. Factor analysis elicited a strong two
factor solution for the infants and a strong three factor solution for the
toddlers. The infant and the toddler factor solutions, with the individual item
descriptions were sent to the National Advisory Team and the DECI
Research Advisory Board (see Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for
Infants and Toddlers: User’s Guide, Appendix D) to advise on naming the
protective factor scales. Additionally our literature review provided further
guidance in selecting these scale titles. There was strong agreement with
both expert opinion and literature which resulted in the titles and their
descriptions for the Infant Form as listed below:
Initiative (18 items) assesses the infant’s ability to use independent
thought and actions to meet her or his needs.
Attachment/Relationships (15 items) assesses the mutual, strong, long
lasting relationship between the infant and significant adults such as
family members, and teachers.
A Total Protective Factors scale, which is a composite of the above two
scales, provides an overall indication of the strength of the infant’s
protective factors.
The DECA-I/T Toddler Form (DECA-T) is comprised of the following scales:
Attachment/Relationships (18 items) assesses the mutual, strong, long
lasting relationship between the toddler and significant adults such
as family members, and teachers.
Initiative (11 items) assesses the toddler’s ability to use independent
thought and actions to meet her or his needs.
Self-Regulation (7 items) assesses the toddler’s ability to gain control of
and manage emotions, and sustain focus and attention.
A Total Protective Factors scale, which is a composite of the above
three scales, provides an overall indication of the strength of the
toddler’s protective factors.
7
Development and Standardization
 Table 1.4

Rotated Factor Analysis Results for DECA-I Scales

Factors
Item # Item In A/R
1 try to do new things .73
3 imitate actions of others .72
5 keep trying when unsuccessful .72
7 show interest in what others were doing .70
9 notice changes in surroundings .70
11 adjust her/his energy level to the type of play .69
13 act happy when praised .67
15 explore surroundings .65
17 express her/his dislikes .65
19 reach for a familiar adult .61
20 respond to her/his name .60
22 react to another child's cry .60
21 keep trying to obtain a toy .59
26 act in a way that make others smile or show interest .59
27 easily go from one activity to another .58
28 seek attention when a familiar adult was with another child .58
30 enjoy being around other children .57
29 look to familiar adult when exploring her/his surroundings .52
32 act happy with familiar adults .76
31 show pleasure when interacting with adults .73
33 accept comfort from a familiar adult .72
23 smile at familiar adults .71
25 act happy .69
24 respond positively to adult attention .68
18 smile back at a familiar adult .67
16 calm down with help from a familiar adult .66
14 make eye contact with others .64
12 act in a good mood .63
10 seek comfort from familiar adults .61
8 show affection for a familiar adult .60
6 enjoy being cuddled .59
4 enjoy interacting with others .52
2 respond when spoken to .50

Note: Only Loadings of .50 or above are reported.

(In = Inititiative, A/R = Attachment/Relationships)

8
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 1.5

Rotated Factor Analysis Results for DECA-T Scales

Factors
Item # Item A/R In SR

2 show affection for a familiar adult .76

21 easily go from one activity to another .75
6 act happy with familiar adults .74
22 show pleasure when interacting with adults .73
15 smile back at a familiar adult .71
4 seek comfort from familiar adults .69
36 express avariety of emotions (e.g., happy, sad, mad) .66
17 reach for a familiar adult .66
5 makes needs known to a familiar adult .66
25 accept comfort from a familiar adult .66
11 act happy when praised .65
13 make eye contact with others .65
24 makes others aware of her/his needs .62
7 show interest in her/his surroundings .60
18 respond to her/his name .59
8 respond when spoken to .58
14 enjoy being cuddled .58
1 enjoy interacting with others .52
9 show concern for other children .76
10 try to comfort others .75
26 play make-believe .67
29 try to clean up after herself/himself .67
28 show preference for a particular playmate .66
19 react to another child’s cry .64
16 ask to do new things .64
31 play with other children .60
12 participate in group activities .56
32 try to do things for herself/himself .55
27 follow simple directions .55
23 handle frustration well .72
34 accept another choice when the first choice was not available .68
3 adjust to changes in routine .67
33 calm herself/himself .61
30 easily follow a daily routine .58
35 have regular sleeping pattern .56
21 easily go from one activity to another .56

Note: Only Loadings of .50 or above are reported.

(A/R = Attachment/Relationships, In = Inititiative, SR = Self-Regulation)
9
Development and Standardization
 The individual DECA-I/T protective item factor loadings were obtained
using principal components extraction with varimax rotation. The Kaiser
(1960) rule (i.e., eigenvalues greater than 1.0) and scree plots were
initially used to assist in determining the existence of a factor. Subsequently,
an iterative procedure was used, based on absolute value of standardized
factor loadings of .4, until potential subscales were completely resolved
with unique factor loadings. These factor analytic results showed that each
of the subscale factors is comprised of items with substantial loadings on the
subscale on which they are placed, and which did not have substantial
loadings on the subscales on which they were not placed.

Norming Procedures
The first step in preparing the norms was to determine if any trends
existed in the data. We examined the children’s Total Protective Factors
Scale Raw Score means and standard deviations for age, Rater, and
gender differences. Figure 1.2 suggests age trends in the total raw score for
the infant (1 to 18 months). There were no age trends for the toddlers.
Separate norms tables (see Appendix A and B of the DECA-I/T User’s
Guide) were developed for 1 up to 3 months, 3 up to 6 months, 6 up to
9 months, and 9 up to 18 months (there were no differences for the 9 up
to 12, 12 up to 15, and 15 up to 18 months scores) for the infant form and
18 up to 36 months for the toddler form.

Figure 1.2

Infant Mean Total Raw Scores by Age

120
120
Score

100
T o ta lScore

100
80
80
60
M ea n Raw

60
40
40
20
Mean Total

20
0
0
1-3
1-3 3-6 6-9
6-9 9-12 12-18
12-18
Month AgeMonths
in Months Months

10
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 We also found the need to construct norms by Rater (parents/family
members and early care and education professionals) because initial
analyses showed significant differences in the scores. These differences
were most likely due to the different environments in which these different
Raters see the children. After determining that Rater norms would be
constructed, we examined the distributions of raw scores for normality.
The cumulative frequency distributions for the derived scales (see Tables 1.4
and 1.5 on pages 8 and 9) all approached normality but were slightly
positively skewed. For this reason we decided to compute the separate
norms tables using classical normalization procedures.
To accomplish this, we fit the obtained frequency distribution for each
scale to normal probability standard scores using Blom’s (Blom, 1958)

3
algorithm of
r−
8
1
w+
4

where r is the rank of the score and w is the sum of weight. These
procedures were followed for all of the protective factor scales.

T Scores
We computed standard scores separately for each of the scales based on
their individual raw score distributions. We determined the standard scores
corresponding to the percentiles for which they are theoretically associated
based on the normal curve. T scores for each scale were set at a mean of
50 and a standard deviation of 10. We selected this metric because of its
familiarity to professionals, its previous use with the DECA, and because it
facilitates interpretation of the results and comparison with T scores from
other similar scales.
In order to maintain this metric for Total Protective Factors scores, and
in order to equalize the weights due to the different numbers of items
per subscale, a second normalization was required. That is, we added
together the T scores for the subscales (two for the Infant form and three for
the Toddler form). This sum was then normalized using Blom’s algorithm
(Blom, 1958), and transformed with the T score formula of (10 x Z ) + 50.

11
Development and Standardization
 3
2

Reliability
T he reliability of assessments like the DECA-I/T is defined as,
“the consistency of scores obtained by the same person when reexamined
with the same test on different occasions, or with different sets of equivalent
items, or under other variable examining conditions” (Anastasi, 1988,
p. 102). We assessed the reliability of both the DECA-I and the DECA-T
using several methods. First, we computed the internal reliability coefficients
for each scale. Second, we assessed standard error of measurement (SE M).
Third, we assessed the test-retest reliability of each scale. Finally, we
determined the interrater reliability for each scale.

Internal Reliability
Internal reliability (also known as internal consistency) refers to the extent
to which the items on the same scale or assessment instrument measure
the same underlying construct. High internal reliability, which is desirable,
indicates that the items assess the same characteristic of the child
(i.e., construct) and, therefore, truly comprise a single scale. In contrast,
low internal reliability indicates that the items measure a variety of different
child characteristics and, therefore, do not comprise a single scale.
We determined the internal reliability of each scale and for each form using
Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951). In practice, this statistic can vary from
.00 (low) to .99 (high). The internal reliability coefficients (alphas) were
based on the DECA-I/T standardization sample and estimates for each
were calculated separately for each Rater (parent/family member or early
care and education professional) and are presented in Table 2.1a (Infants)
and Table 2.1b (Toddlers).
The results in these tables indicate that both the DECA-I and the DECA-T
have high internal reliability. For the infant form (DECA-I) the Total Protective
Factors Scale alpha for both Parent Raters (.90 to .94) and Teacher Raters
(.93 to .94) met or exceeded the .90 minimum for a total score suggested
by Bracken (1987) in each age group. In addition, these values met the
“desirable standard” described by Nunnally (1978, p.246). The same was
true for the toddler form (DECA-T) with Parent Raters at .94 and Teacher
Raters at .95.

13
Reliability
 Table 2.1a

Internal Reliability (Alpha) Estimates

for DECA-I Scales by Rater
Raters
Scale Parents Teachers

1-3 Months
Initiative .87 .87
Attachment/Relationships .80 .93
Total Protective Factors .90 .93

3-6 Months
Initiative .86 .91
Attachment/Relationships .87 .91
Total Protective Factors .90 .94

6-9 Months
Initiative .90 .89
Attachment/Relationships .89 .89
Total Protective Factors .94 .93

9-18 Months
Initiative .87 .90
Attachment/Relationships .92 .91
Total Protective Factors .93 .94

The internal reliability coefficients for the DECA-I scales (Initiative

and Attachment/Relationships) were also high. These ranged from a low
of .80 (1 to 3 Months Attachment/Relationships Parent Rater) to a high of
.93 (1 to 3 Months Attachment/Relationships Teacher Rater). The median
reliability coefficient across both scales was .87 for Parent Raters and .90
for Teacher Raters. These median values met or exceeded the .80 minimum
for scale scores suggested by Bracken (1987).

14
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 2.1b

Internal Reliability (Alpha) Estimates

for DECA-T Scales by Rater
Raters
Scale Parents Teachers

Attachment/Relationships .87 .90

Initiative .92 .94
Self-Regulation .79 .83
Total Protective Factors .94 .95

The internal reliability coefficients for the DECA-T remaining scales

(Attachment/Relationships, Initiative and Self-Regulation) were high as well.
These ranged from a low of .79 (Self-Regulation Parent Rater) to a high of
.94 (Initiative Teacher Rater). The median reliability coefficient across these
three scales was .87 for Parent Raters and .90 for Teacher Raters. These
median values also met or exceeded the .80 minimum for scale scores sug-
gested by Bracken (1987).

Standard Errors of Measurement

The standard error of measurement (SE M) is another index of the reliability
of test scores. It is an estimate of the amount of error in the observed score,
expressed in standard score units (i.e., T scores). We obtained the SE M for
each of the DECA-I/T Scale T scores directly from the internal reliability
coefficient (r) using the formula,

SEM = σ 1 − r

where σ is the theoretical standard deviation of the T score (10) and the
appropriate reliability coefficient (r) is used (Atkinson, 1991). The SE M
for each DECA-I and DECA-T scale according to Rater are presented in
Table 2.2a and Table 2.2b. The SE MS varied with the size of the internal
reliability coefficient reported in Tables 2.1a and 2.1b—the higher the
reliability, the smaller the standard error of measurement.

15
Reliability
 Table 2.2a

Standard Errors of Measurement

for the DECA-I Scale T Scores by Rater
Raters
Scale Parents Teachers

1-3 Months
Initiative 3.61 3.61
Attachment/Relationships 4.47 2.65
Total Protective Factors 3.16 2.65

3-6 Months
Initiative 3.74 3.00
Attachment/Relationships 3.61 3.00
Total Protective Factors 3.16 2.45

6-9 Months
Initiative 3.16 3.32
Attachment/Relationships 3.32 3.32
Total Protective Factors 2.45 2.65

9-18 Months
Initiative 3.61 3.16
Attachment/Relationships 2.83 3.00
Total Protective Factors 2.65 2.45

Test-Retest Reliability
The correlation between scores obtained for the same child by the same
Rater on two separate occasions is another indicator of the reliability of
an assessment instrument. The correlation of this pair of scores is the test-
retest reliability coefficient (r), and the magnitude of the obtained value
informs us about the degree to which random changes influence the scores
(Anastasi, 1988).

16
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 2.2b

Standard Errors of Measurement

for the DECA-T Scale T Scores by Rater
Raters
Scale Parents Teachers

Attachment/Relationships 3.61 3.16

Initiative 2.83 2.45
Self-Regulation 4.58 4.12
Total Protective Factors 2.45 2.24

Table 2.3a

Characteristics of DECA-I Test-Retest Reliability Sample

Raters
Characteristic Parents Teachers

Size of Sample (n) 20 23

Age (Months)
Mean 7.9 9.3
SD 3.8 3.8

Gender
Boys 40% 44%
Girls 60% 56%

Race
Native American 5% 5%
Asian/Pacific Islander 5% 5%
African American 5%
Hispanic 5% 5%
Caucasian 80% 75%
Mixed Race 5% 5%
Other

17
Reliability
 Table 2.3b

Characteristics of DECA-T Test-Retest Reliability Sample

Raters
Characteristic Parents Teachers

Size of Sample (n) 22 20

Age (Months)
Mean 26.1 26.2
SD 4.8 4.6

Gender
Boys 50% 50%
Girls 50% 50%

Race
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander
African American 5% 5%
Hispanic
Caucasian 90% 95%
Mixed Race
Other 5%

To investigate the test-retest reliability of the DECA-I/T, a group of parents

(n=20 for DECA-I and n=22 for DECA-T) and a group of teachers (n=23)
for DECA-I and n=20 for DECA-T) rated the same child on two different
occasions separated by a minimum of 24 hours and a maximum of
72 hours. Descriptive information on the children rated in this study is
provided in Table 2.3a and Table 2.3b.
Table 2.4a presents the results of Test-Retest Reliability Study for the
DECA-I. All of the correlation coefficients were statistically significant
(p < .001), which indicates the scales have very good test-retest reliability.
Overall, parents were more consistent in their evaluation of the children’s
behavior across time. For parents, the higher correlation was found on the
Initiative Scale (.94), and the lower on the Attachment/Relationships Scale
(.86). The higher correlation for early care and education professionals was
found on the Attachment/Relationships and Total Protective Factor Scales
(.84) and the lowest on the Initiative Scale (.83).
18
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 2.4a

Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for DECA-I Scores

Obtained at a 24- to 72-Hour Interval
Scale Parents Teachers Overall

Initiative .94*** .83*** .87***

Attachment/Relationships .86*** .84*** .83***
Total Protective Factors .91*** .84*** .85***

*** (p < .001)

Table 2.4b

Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for

DECA-T Scores Obtained at a 24- to 72-Hour Interval
Scale Parents Teachers Overall

Attachment/Relationships .97*** .96*** .97***

Initiative .99*** .98*** .98***
Self-Regulation .92*** .72*** .85***
Total Protective Factors .99*** .91*** .97***

*** (p < .001)

Table 2.4b presents the results of Test-Retest Reliability Study for the
DECA-T. All of the correlation coefficients were also statistically significant
(p < .001), which indicates the scales have very good test-retest reliability.
As was the case with infants, parents were somewhat more consistent in
their assessment of toddlers than teachers, although both raters are highly
reliable. For parents, the highest correlation was found on the Initiative
Scale (.99), and the lowest on the Self-Regulation Scale (.92). The highest
correlation for early care and education professionals was found on the
Initiative Scale (.98) and the lowest on the Self-Regulation Scale (.72).

19
Reliability
Interrater Reliability
The correlation between scores obtained for the same child at the same time
by two different Raters is another indicator of the reliability of an assessment
instrument. The magnitude of the obtained value informs us about the
degree of similarity in the different Raters’ perceptions of the child’s
behavior.
A set of ratings included two independent ratings of the same child
completed on the same day. The ratings were provided by either two early
care and education professionals or two parents (or other family members).

Table 2.5a

Characteristics of DECA-I Interrater Reliability Sample

Raters
Characteristic Parents Teachers

Size of Sample (n) 45 63

Age (Months)
Mean 9.9 9.8
SD 4.5 4.3

Gender
Boys 21 (46.7%) 34 (54.0%)
Girls 24 (53.3%) 29 (46.0%)

Race
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander
African American 8 (17.8%) 18 (28.6%)
Hispanic 4 (8.9%) 5 (7.9%)
Caucasian 33 (73.3%) 40 (63.5%)
Other

20
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 2.5b

Characteristics of DECA-T Interrater Reliability Sample

Raters
Characteristic Parents Teachers

Size of Sample (n) 49 60

Age (Months)
Mean 29.7 25.3
SD 5.0 5.5

Gender
Boys 37 (75.5%) 26 (43.3%)
Girls 12 (24.5%) 34 (56.7%)

Race
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 (6.7%)
African American 3 (6.1%) 24 (40.0%)
Hispanic 2 (3.3%)
Caucasian 46 (93.9%) 30 (50.0%)
Other

Two different comparisons were made: 1) Teacher Rater-Teacher Rater and

2) Parent Rater-Parent Rater. We collected Teacher Rater-Teacher Rater
pairs of ratings on 63 infants and 60 toddlers. We also collected Parent
Rater-Parent Rater pairs of ratings on 45 infants and 49 toddlers.
Demographic information on the children rated is provided in Table 2.5a
and Table 2.5b.
Table 2.6a presents the results of this study for the infants. The interrater
reliability coefficients for Parent Rater pairs and Teacher Rater pairs who
saw the child in the same environment were both high and statistically
significant (all p < .01). The coefficient for Total Protective Factors was
.68 for Parent Raters and .72 for Teacher Raters. These results indicate that
different pairs of parents or teachers rate the same child very similarly
on the DECA-I when observing the child in the same environment.

21
Reliability
 Table 2.6a

Interrater Reliability Coefficients for DECA-I Scores

Scale Parent-Parent Teacher-Teacher

Initiative .76** .64**

Attachment/Relationships .59** .71**
Total Protective Factors .68** .72**

** (p < .01)

Table 2.6b presents the results of this study for toddlers. As was the case
with infants, all of the interrater reliability coefficients were high and
statistically significant (all p < .01). The interrater reliability coefficients
for the three protective factor scales ranged from .62 for Parent Raters
on the Attachment/Relationships scale to .72 for Parent Raters on the
Self-Regulation scale. The median reliability coefficient across both
Parent and Teacher Raters on the three protective factor scales was .68.
Parent and Teacher Raters obtained coefficients of .70 and .74 respectively
on the Total Protective Factors scale. Again these results demonstrate that
different pairs of parents or teachers rate the same child very similarly on
the DECA-T when observing that child in the same environment.

Table 2.6b

Interrater Reliability Coefficients for DECA-T Scores

Scale Parent-Parent Teacher-Teacher

Attachment/Relationships .62** .71**

Initiative .64** .66**
Self-Regulation .72** .71**
Total Protective Factors .70** .74**

** (p < .01)

22
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
Stability of DECA-I/T Ratings
The correlation coefficients reported for the test-retest reliability studies
indicate that the pairs of raters ranked the infants and toddlers similarly.
However, the coefficients do not indicate the actual similarity in the scores.
Tables 2.7a through 2.7d provide the pretest and posttest mean scale
T-scores and standard deviations received by the infants and toddlers in the
test-retest study as rated by parents and teachers.

Table 2.7a

DECA-I Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores

and Standard Deviations—Parent Raters
Scales Pretest Posttest
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Initiative 54.5 (9.3) 52.8 (8.9)
Attachment/Relationships 52.1 (7.9) 52.3 (8.6)
Total Protective Factors 53.8 (8.7) 52.7 (9.3)

Table 2.7b

DECA-I Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores

and Standard Deviations—Teacher Raters
Scales Pretest Posttest
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Initiative 57.4 (8.4) 56.2 (7.3)
Attachment/Relationships 54.4 (6.1) 53.6 (6.9)
Total Protective Factors 56.3 (7.5) 55.2 (7.2)

23
Reliability
 For parents, when rating infants, on average, the absolute value of the
test-retest difference on the Initiative and Attachment/Relationship scales
was less than one T-score point (0.92). The Total Protective Factors scale
test-retest absolute value difference for parents was also approximately one
T-score point (1.1). The results for Teacher Raters were very similar. On the
Initiative and Attachment/Relationship scales, the mean absolute value of
the test-retest difference was one T-score point (1.00). The absolute value of
the test-retest difference for the Total Protective Factors scale was also about
one T-score point (1.1). These results demonstrate that the DECA Infant Form
ratings are very stable across a one- to three-day interval for both parent
and teacher raters.
Tables 2.7c and 2.7d present the pretest and posttest mean scale T-scores
and standard deviations received by toddlers in the test-retest study as rated
by parents and teachers. Pairs of parent raters differed, on average, by less
than three T-score points (2.5) across the three protective factor scales
as well as the Total Protective Factor Scale (2.6). Teachers were even more
consistent in their ratings, differing by an average of average of 0.8 T-score
points on the three protective factor scales and 0.9 T-score points on the
Total Protective Factors scale. These results demonstrate that the DECA
Toddler Form ratings are very stable across a one- to three-day interval for
both parent and teacher raters.

Table 2.7c

DECA-T Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores

and Standard Deviations—Parent Raters
Scales Pretest Posttest
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Attachment/Relationships 53.5 (11.2) 50.5 (8.5)
Initiative 50.2 (10.7) 48.3 (9.1)
Self-Regulation 51.6 (9.7) 48.9 (10.0)
Total Protective Factors 51.8 (10.9) 49.2 (9.3)

24
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 2.7d

DECA-T Pretest and Posttest Mean Scale T-Scores

and Standard Deviations—Teacher Raters
Scales Pretest Posttest
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Attachment/Relationships 45.0 (9.3) 42.7 (7.3)
Initiative 45.5 (7.1) 45.6 (8.4)
Self-Regulation 45.3 (9.5) 45.2 (10.2)
Total Protective Factors 44.4 (7.5) 43.5 (8.2)

Summary
The results of the internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater reliability
studies indicate that the DECA-I/T is a reliable tool for assessing infant and
toddler protective factors. The results of the internal consistency study
demonstrated that the DECA-I/T meets the desirable standards that
measurement and testing professionals have recommended. The test-retest
study showed that Raters give very similar ratings on the same child across
relatively short periods. This indicates that the DECA-I/T is not easily
impacted by random changes, but tends to provide a consistent assessment
of the child within a single setting, and stability of multiple assessments over
time. The results of the interrater reliability studies demonstrate that pairs of
parents and teachers have similar perceptions of both infants and toddlers.
These results should assure parents and early care and educational
professionals alike that the DECA-I/T is a reliable assessment package that
can be used with confidence.

25
Reliability
 3

Validity
T he validity of a test “concerns what the test measures and how
well it does so” (Anastasi, 1988, p. 139). More specifically, validity studies
investigate the evidence that supports the conclusions or inferences that are
made based on test results and the interpretive guidelines presented in the
test manual. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing (APA, 1985), validity evidence can be conceptualized as related to
content, prediction (criterion), and construct. We investigated the validity of
the DECA-I/T in regard to each of these three areas, and convergence in
the case of the DECA and DECA-I/T.

Content Validity
Content validity assesses the degree to which the domain measured by the
test is represented by the test items. With respect to the DECA-I/T, content
validity addresses how well the protective factor items represent the entire
domain of within-child behavioral characteristics related to resilience in
infants and toddlers.
As detailed in Chapter 1 of this manual, the content of the DECA-I/T was
based on a thorough review of the resilience literature related to young
children; results of national focus groups conducted with parents, teachers
and infant and early childhood mental health professionals; and careful
review of other infant and toddler social and emotional instruments. This
resulted in a large initial pool of 112 distinct strength-based behaviors.
The authors and DECI (Devereux Early Childhood Initiative) staff critically
reviewed this set of potential items. Specifically, they were asked if
they thought any content pertaining to within-child protective factors for
infants and toddlers was missing. The consensus was that there was ample
coverage of content with no skills/topics missing.
The 112-item protocol was piloted with a small national sample of 251
children prior to standardization. This protocol was further refined based
on feedback from DECI staff and the National Advisory Team as well as
pilot study results. The final standardization form consisted of 68 items
and was sent out nationally.

27
Validity
 The standardization data set was further reduced by ridding the sample of
cases that had critical information missing, such as the date of birth of the
child. The final data set was 2,183 children. Utilizing this final data set and
the analytic techniques described in Chapter 1, a large number of the items
were eliminated, resulting in a final 2-factor solution with 33 items for the
DECA-I and a 3-factor solution with 36 items for the DECA-T. It is note-
worthy that the items and scales on both the DECA-I and the DECA-T have
striking similarities to the within-child protective factor scales on the DECA.
All three scales include the constructs of Initiative and Attachment/
Relationships. In addition, the construct of Self-Regulation on the DECA-T is
quite similar to the construct of Self-Control on the DECA. The overlap and
similarities also signify an important developmental trajectory that the scales
follow from infancy through the preschool age. The similarity of the factor
structure and scale content on the DECA and the DECA-I/T, despite the
fact that they were developed with two entirely different samples, lends
credence to the importance of these constructs in the social and emotional
development of children from birth through age five.

Criterion Validity
Criterion validity measures the degree to which the scores on the assessment
instrument predict either 1) an individual’s performance on an outcome or
criterion measure, or 2) the status or group membership of an individual.
Protective factors buffer children against stress and adversity, resulting in
better outcomes than would have been possible in their absence. One
important outcome for young children is social and emotional health.
Consequently, children with high scores on the DECA-I/T Protective Factor
Scales should have greater social and emotional health than children with
low scores on these scales.
To test this hypothesis, we obtained DECA-I and DECA-T ratings on two
samples of infants and toddlers. The “Identified” sample had known
emotional and behavioral problems. These children met at least one of
the two following criteria: 1) they had been referred to a mental health
professional due to social and emotional challenges, or 2) they had been
asked to leave a childcare setting due to their behavior.
We also obtained DECA-I and DECA-T ratings for a matched comparison
group of typical infants and toddlers, the “Community” sample. Matching
variables included age, gender, and race. Table 3.1a and 3.1b provide
descriptive information on the samples for the DECA-I and the DECA-T
showing that the two groups were demographically similar.

28
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 3.1a

Characteristics of the DECA-I Validity Study Sample

Identified Sample Community Sample
Characteristic % %

Size of Sample (n) 15 15

Age (Months)
Mean 10.6 11.7
SD 5.2 4.5

Gender
Boys 8 53.0% 8 53.0%
Girls 7 47.0% 7 47.0%

Race*
Native American 1 6.7% 1 6.7%
African American 3 20.0% 4 26.6%
Hispanic 4 26.6% 5 33.3%
Caucasian 6 40.0% 7 46.6%
Missing 3 20.0%

*Totals do not add up to 100% due to multiple race

Contrasted Groups
The contrasted groups approach to assessing criterion validity examines
scale score differences between groups of individuals who differ on some
important variable. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) proce-
dures were used to contrast scale scores for the identified and community
samples. Preliminary tests of homogeneity of variance and normality were
conducted, and no adverse violations of assumptions were found.
Subsequently, independent t-tests were used to compare the Total Protective
Factors scores for the two groups.
Table 3.2a presents the results of this study with the DECA-I and documents
that there were significant and meaningful differences between the
“Identified” and the “Community” samples on all three scales. The mean
standard score differences and other results reported in Table 3.2a indicate
that the ratings of the two groups differ significantly despite the similarity in
demographic characteristics (p < .01).

29
Validity
 Table 3.1b

Characteristics of the DECA-T Validity Study Sample

Identified Sample Community Sample
Characteristic % %

Size of Sample (n) 69 69

Age (Months)
Mean 27.3 27.5
SD 4.6 5.2
Gender
Boys 43 62.3% 38 55.1%
Girls 26 37.7% 31 44.9%
Race*
Native American 8 6.7% 2 2.9%
African American 9 20.0% 7 10.1%
Hispanic 15 26.6% 19 27.5%
Caucasian 45 40.0% 43 62.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 20.0% 1 1.4%
Other 3 4.3% 2 2.9%

*Totals do not add up to 100% due to multiple race

Similarly, Table 3.2b presents the results of this study with the DECA-T and
documents that there were significant and meaningful differences between
the “Identified” and the “Community” samples on all four scales. The mean
standard score differences and other results reported in Table 3.2b strong-
ly indicate that the ratings of the two groups differed significantly despite the
similarity in demographic characteristics (p < .01).
Besides being statistically significant, the means of the two groups on each
instrument and on each scale differed by approximately one standard
deviation (d-ratios range from .75 to 1.52). The d-ratio is a measure of
the size of the difference between the mean scores expressed in standard
deviation units. Widely accepted guidelines for interpreting d-ratios (Cohen,
1988) in comparing two groups indicate that the magnitudes of .2, .5, and
.8 are interpreted as small, medium, and large, respectively. Therefore, the
effect sizes in Tables 3.2a and 3.2b would all be characterized as large
except Initiative on the toddler scale, which would be characterized as a
medium effect size. These findings provide evidence of the validity of the
DECA-I/T scales in discriminating between groups of infants and toddlers
with and without social and emotional concerns.
30
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 3.2a

Mean T Scores and Difference Statistics

for DECA-I Validity Study
Identified Sample Community Sample
(n=15) (n=15)

Initiative
Mean 45.3 54.4
SD 8.6 11.8
F Value 6.20***
d-Ratio .89

Attachment/Relationships
Mean 41.6 54.4
SD 9.6 7.2
F Value 18.89***
d-Ratio 1.52

Total Protective Factors

Mean 42.9 53.2
SD 9.3 9.6
t Value* 3.71**
d-Ratio 1.09

* t-test for independent means

** p < .01

Examination of Potential Adverse Impact

*** p < .001

on Minority Children
The contrasted group approach can also be used to show that groups that
differ on a variable thought to be irrelevant to the purpose of the instrument
do not differ on scale scores. To evaluate the appropriateness of the
DECA-I/T for use with minority children, we compared the mean scores of
African American and Caucasian children and Hispanic and Caucasian
children in the standardization sample. The goal was to determine if these
groups of children received similar ratings on the DECA-I/T. To assess
the difference in ratings we compared the means using the d-ratio statistic.
It should be noted that d-ratios following non-significant hypothesis tests
should be interpreted as being not statistically significantly different from
zero (Sawilowsky & Yoon, 2002).
31
Validity
 Table 3.2b

Mean T Scores and Difference Statistics

for DECA-T Validity Study
Identified Sample Community Sample
(n=69) (n=69)

Attachment/Relationships
Mean 42.6 50.3
SD 9.4 9.6
F Value 31.01***
d-Ratio .81

Initiative
Mean 42.7 50.4
SD 10.7 9.7
F Value 37.42***
d-Ratio .75

Self-Regulation
Mean 41.0 50.5
SD 9.7 9.7
F Value 35.25***
d-Ratio .98

Total Protective Factors

Mean 40.9 50.5
SD 8.9 9.8
t Value* 7.07**
d-Ratio 1.03

* t-test for independent means

** p < .01
*** p < .001

32
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 3.3a presents the results of these analyses for the DECA-I. As shown
in Table 3.3a, 19 of 12 of the mean score differences were negligible.
Two of the remaining three mean score differences would be characterized
as “small” and one “medium.” The average d-ratio when comparing scores
earned by African American and Caucasian children was .09. The average
d-ratio when comparing scores earned by Hispanic and Caucasian children
was .26.

Table 3.3a

DECA-I Scale Scores: d-Ratios Comparing

Minority and Non-Minority Children
African-American Hispanic
vs. Caucasian vs. Caucasian

Teacher Raters
Initiative .08 .11
Attachment/Relationships .01 .07
Total Protective Factors .05 .11

Parent Raters
Initiative .19 .21
Attachment/Relationships .15 .67
Total Protective Factors .08 .41

33
Validity
 Table 3.3b presents the results of these analyses for the DECA-T. As shown
in Table 3.3b, 9 of 16 of the mean score differences were negligible.
Six of the remaining mean score differences would be characterized as
“small” and one as “medium.” The average d-ratio when comparing scores
earned by African American and Caucasian children was .20. The average
d-ratio when comparing scores earned by Hispanic and Caucasian children
was .24.

Table 3.3b

DECA-T Scale Scores: d-Ratios Comparing

Minority and Non-Minority Children
African-American Hispanic
vs. Caucasian vs. Caucasian

Teacher Raters
Attachment/Relationships .07 .02
Initiative .33 .14
Self-Regulation .05 .10
Total Protective Factors .11 .06

Parent Raters
Attachment/Relationships .30 .68
Initiative .06 .17
Self-Regulation .42 .29
Total Protective Factors .27 .47

34
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Individual Prediction
The criterion validity of a test can also be determined by examining the
ability of scale scores to predict accurately group membership for individ-
ual study participants. Therefore, we investigated the extent to which
the DECA-I/T scale scores accurately predicted membership in either the
identified or the community sample.
For each scale, we predicted that individuals with a T score of less than or
equal to 40 would be members of the identified sample, and those with
scores above 40 would be members of the community sample. (Recall that
T scores of 40 and below on the protective factor scales indicate Areas of
Need.) We then compared the accuracy of these predictions with actual
group membership. Tables 3.4a and 3.4b present the results of this study
for infants and toddlers respectively.
There are a number of ways to evaluate the accuracy of the predictions
shown in Tables 3.4a and 3.4b. The first is to examine the sensitivity of the
scale scores. Sensitivity is defined as the percentage of individuals in the
identified sample who would be predicted by the scale T scores to be part
of that group (i.e., who obtained scale T scores of less than or equal to 40).
As shown in Table 3.4a, for the 15 infants in the identified sample, the
Attachment/Relationships scale had the highest sensitivity at 46.7%. Total
Protective Factors correctly predicted 40% of the identified sample and
Initiative 26.7%.
Another common measure of the accuracy of scale predictions is
specificity, or the percentage of individuals in the Community Sample that
would be predicted to be in that group (i.e., have scale scores of greater
than or equal to 40). The results in Table 3.4a indicate that the specificity
of the DECA-I is quite high. For each scale, 86.7% of the infants in the
Community Sample had scale T scores greater than 40.
Sensitivity and specificity can be combined to yield the total correct
predictions. This is calculated by dividing the number of individuals in the
two correct prediction categories (Identified Sample infants with T scores less
than or equal to 40, and Community Sample infants with T scores greater
than 40) by the total number of individuals in both samples. Using the Total
Protective Factors scale T scores we would achieve a total correct prediction
of 63.3%.
Another way to evaluate the predictive validity of an assessment is to
examine the positive predictive value, which is the percentage of individu-
als receiving a positive score (in the case of the DECA-I, a T score of less
than or equal to 40) that are part of the identified sample. An examination
of Table 3.4a reveals that six of the eight infants receiving a T score of less

35
Validity
 Table 3.4a

Actual and Predicted Group Membership

for the DECA-I Validity Study
Identified Sample Community Sample
Characteristic n % n %

Actual Group Membership 15 15

Predicted Group Membership

Initiative
≤ 40 4 26.7% 2 13.3%
> 40 11 73.3% 13 86.7%

Attachment/Relationships
≤ 40 7 46.7% 2 13.3%
> 40 8 53.3% 13 86.7%

Total Protective Factors

≤ 40 6 40% 2 13.3%
> 40 9 60% 13 86.7%

than or equal to 40 were from the identified sample, resulting in a positive

predictive value of 75%. In other words, based on the results of this study,
75% of the time, when an infant receives a Total Protective Factors score that
is in the Area of Need range, that child will be found to have significant
behavioral challenges.
The results for toddlers, shown in Table 3.4b, are even stronger. Sensitivity
ranged from 40.6% for Attachment/Relationships to 56.6% for Total
Protective Factors. Sensitivity ranged from 79.7% for Attachment/
Relationships to 87% for Initiative. Using the Total Protective Factors scale,
the total correct classification in this study was 70.3%. Finally, the positive
predictive value for toddlers based on the Total Protective Factors scale
was 78%.

36
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 3.4b

Actual and Predicted Group Membership

for the DECA-T Validity Study
Identified Sample Community Sample
Characteristic n % n %

Actual Group Membership 69 69

Predicted Group Membership

Attachment/Relationships
≤ 40 28 40.6% 14 20.3%
> 40 41 59.4% 55 79.7%

Initiative
≤ 40 34 49.3% 9 13.0%
> 40 35 50.7% 60 87.0%

Self-Regulation
≤ 40 34 49.3% 13 18.8%
> 40 35 50.7% 56 81.2%

Total Protective Factors

≤ 40 39 56.6% 11 15.9%
> 40 30 43.4% 58 84.1%

The results of the individual prediction study indicate that the DECA-I/T can
provide very useful information in identifying infants and toddlers who have
significant behavioral challenges. It should also be noted that sensitivity
and specificity cannot both be maximized—they are a trade off. As one
increases sensitivity, one necessarily decreases specificity and vice versa.
Therefore, the authors of a test have to choose which category of correct
prediction to maximize. In the DECA-I/T, we have chosen to maximize
specificity. What this means is that comparatively few young children who
do not have significant emotional and behavioral challenges will achieve

37
Validity
 low scores on the DECA-I/T. That is, there will be very few false positive
findings. This will help ensure that mental health promotion resources, which
are often quite scarce, will be devoted to those infants and toddlers that
truly need them. Caution should be used, since some children will still
need additional support and should not be ignored. This underscores the
importance of not rigidly using the recommended cut-score of 40 and
considering many sources of information in making important decisions
about the child.

Construct Validity
Convergent Validity
Construct-related validity ascertains the degree to which the assessment
instrument measures the theoretical construct of interest. One of the prima-
ry methods of contributing evidence of construct validity is to demonstrate
convergence with previously established constructs of a similar nature. In the
case of the DECA-I/T, the construct generally pertains to the extent to
which the DECA-I/T captures evidence of resilience versus some other
characteristic of infants and toddlers.
Typically, convergence evidence is demonstrated by high correlations
between scores on the instrument under investigation and scores on previ-
ously established measures of the same construct. Because of the overlap in
ages between the DECA (LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999) and the DECA-T, and
the similarity of the factors, it was possible to test the convergence of the
constructs on the two measures.
A sample (n=35) of toddlers of age 2 years to 3 years old was assessed
using both the DECA and the DECA-T. The DECA scales (Initiative,
Self-Control, Attachment, and Total Protective Factors) and the DECA-T
scales (Attachment/Relationships, Initiative, Self-Regulation, and Total
Protective Factors) are conceptually the same. Table 3.5 presents the results
of this study.
These results were examined and all found to be statistically significant, as
would be expected if there were convergence evidence. Thus, these findings
provide evidence that DECA-T does measure protective factors similarly as
when compared to the DECA. Furthermore, due to anchor and similar core
items, albeit differing factor analytic structure, there is a level of confidence
regarding convergence evidence of the DECA-I as well.

38
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Table 3.5

Convergent Validity Results (DECA and DECA-T)

DECA-T
A/R In SR TPF
AT Pearson
Correlation .877(**) .725(**) .646(**) .844(**)
N 35 34 33 33

In Pearson
Correlation .687(**) .831(**) .639(**) .799(**)
DECA

N 35 34 33 33

SC Pearson
Correlation .637(**) .605(**) .868(**) .712(**)
N 35 34 33 33

TPF Pearson
Correlation .848(**) .851(**) .769(**) .907(**)
N 35 34 33 33

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

DECA-T Factors
A/R = Attachment/Relationships / In = Initiative / SR = Self-Regulation / TPF = Total Protective Factors
DECA Factors
AT = Attachment / In = Initiative / SC = Self-Control / TPF = Total Protective Factors

The subscales (Attachment/Relationships, Initiative, Self-Regulation) of the

DECA-T should not be orthogonal, and all the more so negatively related,
which would be counter evidence to their relationship to the same resilien-
cy construct. Nevertheless, they should not be perfectly related to each other,
which would be counter evidence that they are independent factors of
the same construct. Therefore, they should present intercorrelations that
are positive and moderately high in magnitude. The intercorrelations
in Table 3.5 provide ample evidence of this interrelationship between
the subscales.

39
Validity
 Protective Factor Study
An alternative approach to establishing construct validity is to demonstrate
that the assessment instrument yields data that are consistent with predic-
tions derived from the theory underlying the instrument. This approach was
also used in demonstrating the construct validity of the DECA-I/T. Protective
factors are defined as “characteristics that are thought to moderate or buffer
the negative effects of stress and result in more positive behavioral and
psychological outcomes in at-risk children than would have possible in their
absence” (Masten & Garmezy, 1985). Therefore, for similar levels of stress
or risk, children with high protective factors as measured by the DECA-I/T
should have more positive behavioral outcomes. To test this hypothesis,
measures of early childhood risk factors and family stress were obtained on
56 infants and 109 toddlers. Demographic information on this sample is
provided in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6

Sample Characteristics for the

DECA-IT Protective Factor Study
n %

Age
Infants 56 35
Toddlers 109 65

Gender
Male 94 57
Female 71 43

Race
American Indian/Alaska Native 3 2
Asian 5 3
Black/African American 14 8
Native Hawaiian 1 1
White 137 83
Other 4 2

Hispanic Ethnicity 18 11

40
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 A commonly used approach to measuring stress and risk in children and
families is to inventory the major life events that the child has experienced
such as death of a parent, homelessness or major illness. An alternative
approach to measuring stress and risk is to assess daily hassles, which are
repetitive difficulties in daily living such as transportation problems, family
conflict or financial difficulties. Both approaches were used in this study.
Parents and family caregivers who provided the DECA-I/T ratings on the
165 participants in this study were also asked to complete a questionnaire
that included demographic information about the child and his/her family,
as well as information about daily hassles and major life events which may
contribute to the child's level of risk. The parents answered each question
“Yes” or “No.” The daily hassles and major life events questions on this form
were based on a previously used “Preschool Major Life Events Checklist”
((adapted with permission from the Life Events Checklist (Work, Cowen,
Parker & Wyman, 1990) and the Sources of Stress Inventory (Chandler,
1981) and a “Preschool Daily Hassles Checklist” adapted with permission
from the Daily Hassles Scale (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer & Lazarus, 1981)).
Parents and family caregivers also rated their infant or toddler on the
Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale (TABS; Neisworth, Bagnato,
Salvia & Hunt, 1999). The TABS is a questionnaire on which parents rate
the presence of 55 behaviors in their child, marking either “Yes” or “No.”
Parents are also invited to mark “Need Help” for behaviors that they feel
pose a problem. The TABS is composed of four scales, including Detached,
Hyper-sensitive/Active, Underreactive, and Dysregulated. Raw scores are
calculated on each of the four subscales by adding the number of items
marked “Yes” and/or “Need Help.” The TABS also includes a summary
scale, the Temperament and Regulatory Index (TRI), which is based on the
sum of the item scores. The TRI was used as the dependent variable in this
study. The TRI has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. It should
be noted that on the TRI, lower standard scores are associated with more
problematic behaviors and higher scores are desirable.
Data for infants and toddlers were combined for all analyses in this study.
First, the raw scores from the family risk measure were converted to Total
Risk Index T-scores. A median split of the Total Risk Index T-scores was used
to assign the 165 participants in the study to a High Risk Group or a Low
Risk Group. Similarly, a median split of the Total Protective Factors T-score
was used to assign participants to a Low Protective Factors Group or a High
Protective Factors Group. This procedure resulted in four groups: (a) High
Risk-High Protective Factors (n = 40); (b) High Risk- Low Protective Factors
(n = 42); (c) Low Risk-High Protective Factors (n = 39); and (d) Low Risk-
Low Protective Factors (n = 44). The relationships of Total Risk and Total
Protective Factors scores to the Temperament and Regulatory Index scores
are presented in Table 3.7 and Figure 3.1.

41
Validity
 Table 3.7

Mean Temperament and Regulatory Index Scores

for Risk and Protective Factor Groups in
DECA Protective Factor Study
Low Risk High Risk

Low Protective Factors 96.7 88.0

High Protective Factors 106.3 94.9

Figure 3.1

Mean Temperament and Regulatory Index Scores

for Risk and Protective Factor Groups

110

100
High Protective
Factors
TRI Score 90
Low Protective
Factors
80

70
High Risk Low Risk

42
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual
 Consistent with resilience theory, the High Risk-Low Protective Factor group
had the lowest mean score (x = 88.0). The High Risk- High Protective Factor
group’s mean score (x = 94.9) was 6.9 points, or nearly half a standard
deviation higher. The Low Risk-High Protective Factor group had the highest
mean score, 106.3 more than a full standard deviation higher than the
High-Risk-Low Protective group mean. These results were examined using
a 2-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). Main effects of both Total Risk
(F = 19.4, p < .0001 and Total Protective Factors (F = 13.1, p < .00)
were found, and there was no interaction (F = 0.4, p = .54). These find-
ings indicate that Protective Factors, as measured by the DECA-I/T, do
indeed moderate risk. For children at both levels of risk, higher protective
factors were associated with better outcomes than low protective factors.
These findings provide evidence that the DECA-I/T does indeed measure
protective factors related to resilience in infants and toddlers.

Summary
The studies reported in this chapter, when taken as a whole, provide
evidence that the DECA-I/T provides useful information about the social and
emotional strengths of infancts and toddlers that can be used to inform
practice. In the cross-sectional research studies reported here, protective
factor scale scores were significantly associated with either the presence or
absence of social emotional concerns for children from both a statistical and
practical perspective. Parents and early care and education professionals
now have a psychometrically sound measure, which can be used to support
a strength-based system for all infants and toddlers. With the ability to
recognize risk and support key protective factors, children will have an
increased potential for school and life success.
The authors of the DECA-I/T and their colleagues at the Devereux Early
Childhood Initiative are planning a series of multi-year longitudinal research
studies to clarify further the role of identified protective factors, as measured
by the DECA-I/T, in buffering children from risk and in fostering healthy
social and emotional growth. Until those results are available, however,
the DECA-I/T can be utilized with confidence based on the studies
reported here.

43
Validity
 3

References
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing (6th ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Atkinson, L. (1991). Three standard errors of measurement and the
Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 3, 136-138.
Blom, G. (1958), Statistical Estimates and Transformed Beta-Variables.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Bracken, B. A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards
for minimal levels of technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 5, 313-326.
Chandler, L.A., (1981) The source of stress inventory. Psychology in
the Schools, 18 (2), 164-168.
Children’s Defense Fund (2005). The State of America’s Children:
Yearbook 2005 Washington, DC: Author.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Committee to Develop Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing of the American Educational Research Association, the American
Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in
Education (1985). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure
of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Egeland, Byron. (1997). Risk and resilience in infants and young children.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association. Chicago, IL.
Farber, E. A. (1987). Invulnerability among abused and neglected
children. In E. J. Anthony and B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The Invulnerable Child
(pp. 253-288). New York: Guilford Press.
Gordon-Rouse, Kimberly. (June 1996). Infant and toddler resilience:
knowledge, predictions, policy and practice. Paper presented at the
Head Start National Research Conference. Washington, DC.

45
References
 Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor
analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R.S. (1981).
Comparison of two modes of stress management: Daily hassles and uplifts
versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4 (1), 1-37.
LeBuffe, P. A. and Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Devereux Early Childhood
Assessment Technical Manual. Lewisville, North Carolina, Kaplan Press.
Masten, A., & Garmezy, N. (1985). Risk, vulnerability, and protective
factors in developmental psychopathology. In B. Lahey, & A. Kazdin,
(Eds.). Advances in Clinical Child Psychology. New York: Plenum Press.
Masten, Ann & Coatsworth, J. (1998). The Development of Competence in
Favorable and Unfavorable Environments: Lessons Learned From Research
on Successful Children. American Psychologist. 53, 205-220.
Neisworth, J.T., Bagnato, S.J., Salvia, J., & Hunt, F.M. (1999). TABS
Manual for the Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale Early Childhood
Indicators of Developmental Dysfunction. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks
Publishing Co., Inc.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Sawilowsky, S. S., & Yoon, J. (2002). The trouble with trivials (p > .05).
Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 1(1), 143-144.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration,
Bureau of the Census (2006). Statistical Abstract of the United States
2006: The National Data Book (125th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Werner, E. E. (1990). Protective factors and individual resilience.
In S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood
Intervention (pp. 97-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Werner, E. E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In S. J.
Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention,
Second Edition (pp. 115-132). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but Invincible:
A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the Odds: High Risk
Children from Birth to Adulthood. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from Childhood to Midlife:
Risk, Resilience and Recovery. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Work, W.C., Cowen, E.L., Parker, G.R., & Wyman, P.A., (1990).
Stress resilient children in an urban setting. Journal of Primary Prevention,
11(1), 3-17.
46
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers – Technical Manual

View publication stats