KINDERGARTEN SCREENING:
A SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICE
virginia costenbader, allison m. rohrer, and nicholas difonzo
Rochester Institute of Technology
This study investigated current practices for screening new entrants to schools. A mail survey was
conducted of 755 public- and private-school districts in New York State to ascertain the procedures
and instruments used to conduct kindergarten screening. Fifty-one percent (385) of the districts re-
sponded. Thirty percent of the districts reported that they used locally developed screening instru-
ments. The most widely used standardized instruments were the Developmental Indicators for the
Assessment of Learning (DIAL-R) (Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1990), and the Brigance
K & 1 Screen (Brigance, 1992). The great majority of respondents (95%) reported that screening
is conducted on an individual basis, and in 45% of the districts, professionals spend more than 30
minutes in screening procedures with each child. On average, 3.58 different educational profes-
sionals in each district participate in screening procedures. About half of the districts reported that
children identified as “unready” on the basis of screening procedures were referred for further eval-
uation; 19% of the districts advised parents to delay school entry for an additional year. Most dis-
tricts (69%) reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with current district practice. Impli-
cations for practitioners are discussed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The first of the 1989 National Educational Goals states that “by the year 2000, all children in
America will start school ready to learn” (Action Team on School Readiness, 1992). As calls for
greater educational accountability and performance have increased, states have made increasing de-
mands for accurate and reliable assessment of young children. With increasing numbers of school dis-
tricts providing full-day programming for kindergarten children, demands for academic performance
at a younger age also have increased, making accurate screening more critical (Hills, 1987; Stavrou
& Mackler, 1995). Consequently, the number of assessment instruments available to evaluate school
readiness has increased substantially during this decade (Shaugnessy & Greathouse, 1997).
State laws often mandate that school districts screen all entering students to determine if special
needs exist. However, great variability in practice exists and no single procedure or instrument is used
widely or accepted (Thurlow & Gilman, 1999). In New York State, education law requires that screen-
ing procedures be used with every new entrant to determine “which pupils are possibly gifted, have a
possible handicapping condition”, and specify that “diagnostic screening shall include, but not be lim-
ited to: (1) a health examination . . . (2) a determination of receptive and expressive language develop-
ment, motor development, articulation skills and cognitive development” (New York State Education
Law, ∼ 207, 3208, 4403[3]:L Chapter 53, Part 117.3, 1986). The guidelines specify that the “results
of the diagnostic screening shall be reviewed . . . and appropriate referral” made. “A pupil who may
have a handicapping condition shall be referred to the committee on special education”, and “a pupil
identified as possibly gifted shall be reported to the superintendent of schools” (New York State Edu-
cation Law, ~ 207, 3208, 4403[3]:L Chapter 53, Part 117.3, 1986). The exact procedures and measures
to be used for conducting these assessments are left to the discretion of the various school districts.
The selection of instruments for use in kindergarten screening should be based on adequate stan-
dardization, reliability and validity, low cost, ease of administration and scoring, and appropriate
content (Gredler, 1997b; Hills, 1987). The domains generally recommended in the literature for con-
sideration in kindergarten screening include physical health, auditory and visual perception, cogni-
tive development, knowledge of basic concepts, speech and language development, gross- and fine-
motor development, visual/motor development, socialization, and self-help (Gridley, Mucha, &
Hatfield, 1995; McLoughlin & Rausch, 1990; Stavrou & Mackler, 1995). Information on cognitive,
Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 37(4), 2000
© 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
323
Correspondence to: Virginia Costenbader, School Psychology Program, George Eastman Building, 18 Lomb Memorial
Drive, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623-5604; e-mail: vkcgsp@rit.edu.