14
useful information to assist with appropriate planning and placement. Though these tests may be
considered valid, cautionary statements should
accompany all tests administered (Loftin, 2005).
For example, in contrast to traditional methods of
determining learning disabilities, no single academic test is available that would adequately assess the academic skills of students with visual
impairments who are from diverse backgrounds.
Therefore, information must be gathered from
various sources in order to make appropriate decisions and recommendations for these students.
Traditional assessment practices with students could be hard to implement by the presence of a visual impairment and when the child's
native language is not English. This is often the
case when conducting comprehensive evaluations with students who are from CLDB. Schon,
Shaftel, and Markham (2008) suggested that reliability, validity, cultural and language biases, language demands, and native-language testing are
among the many factors to consider when evaluating students from CLDB. Bias in testing occurs
because tests can be culturally loaded or contain
"cultural content or culturally specific knowledge
embedded in both the test items and in the testing method that may differentially influence the
ability of individuals of diverse backgrounds to
perform" (Warren, 2006, p. 106). Students who
have not had sufficient exposure to the mainstream culture in the U.S., more often than not,
do poorly on traditional standardized assessments. In light of this issue, educational diagnosticians and school psychologists are often left with
having to supplement standardized data with informal assessments. Utilizing informal assessments is seen as an "…attempt at meaningful assessment of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds is a movement toward
authentic, performance-based assessment techniques such as portfolio assessment" (Gargiulo,
