Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 34(4), 1997© 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0033-3085/97/040373-06

379

T E S T R E V I E W S

Sharon Bradley-Johnson

Central Michigan University

Mullen, Eileen M. (1995). Mullen Scales of Early Learning. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-ance Service.

Designed for infants and preschoolers from birth through 68 months of age, the Mullen Scalesof Early Learning are said to measure intelligence defined as “a network of interrelated but func-tionally distinct cognitive skills” (p.1). Skills are measured by five scales: Gross Motor, Visual Re-ception, Fine Motor, Receptive Language, and Expressive Language. This test is based on the au-thor’s theory of intelligence, an information processing model, that emphasizes “neurodevelopmentand intrasensory, intersensory learning” (p.7).

Scales are administered individually and not timed. Some items involve questions to a parent,and for some a parent’s assistance may be used to encourage a response. Administration time variesfrom about 15 min for one-year-olds to 60 min for five-year-olds.

Materials consist of the examiner’s manual, an administration book, a stimulus book, protocols,and a kit consisting of many toys. Materials are well made, though not all are child safe (e.g., smallbeads, sticks, and keys). In addition, examiners need to provide 16 materials including a 6-inch highbench, a staircase or portable stair unit, coins, and different papers. The carrying case is convenientto use and well made.

Results for each scale are described by T scores (M 5 50, SD 5 10), percentile ranks, or ageequivalents. Overall results, referred to as an Early Learning Composite, are described by a standardscore (M 5 100, SD 5 15), percentile, or a descriptive category (e.g., average, below average).

According to the author, results can be used to determine eligibility for services under the In-dividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and to obtain specific information needed for plan-ning individualized instruction.

Description of the Scales

Administration and scoring procedures for the following scales are clearly described in the ItemAdministration Book. Basals and ceilings are used in scoring. The order of the items and scales maybe varied to maintain rapport.

The Gross Motor Scale consists of 35 items and is to be used only through 33 months of age.Skills are assessed in supine, prone, sitting, and upright positions. Skills range from rotating head tohopping.

The Visual Reception Scale taps primarily discrimination and memory. This scale consists of33 items ranging from tracking to remembering various forms.

The Fine Motor Scale has 30 items assessing skills ranging from evidence of reflexes to draw-ing a triangle.

The Receptive Language Scale consists of 33 items assessing comprehension and memory.Skills range from a reflexive reaction to a loud noise up to identifying letters.

The Expressive Language Scale is made up of 28 items tapping language production. Skills test-ed range from evidence of sucking, swallowing, and chewing movements to repeating sentences ofup to 12 words.

WD5960.379-384 8/18/97 2:23 PM Page 379

Technical Adequacy

Standardization

The norms are based on 1,849 children ranging from 2 days to 69 months of age. The numberof children per age group ranged from 84 to 156. The age groups for the norm tables, however, arebroken down into smaller age groups than the groupings used to describe the norm sample. Hence,for the norms, several age groupings consist of fewer than 100 children per group. Data were col-lected in two phases, one from 1981 to 1986 and the other from 1987 to 1989. Thus, some of the dataare already more than 15 years old. No children with known physical or mental impairments wereincluded. Demographic characteristics of the sample were similar to the 1990 U.S. Census data interms of gender, race/ethnicity (African American, Hispanic, White, Other), community size, and fa-ther’s occupation. The geographical distribution is not representative of the nation. Only 25% of thenorm groups were from the South (census 36%), 40% were from the Northeast (census 19%), 20%were from the West (census 21%), and only 15% were from the North/South Central region (census24%). Further, for birth through 14 months, no children were included from the North/South Cen-tral region. Thus, there are problems with the norm sample because some of the data are already out-of-date; there are too few children for at least some of the age groups for the norm tables; and thesample is not geographically representative because there were too few children from the South andNorth/South Central regions and too many from the Northeast.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability data are provided based on a modified split-half method for eachage group for each scale and the overall composite. Of the 83 correlations reported for the five scales,66 (80%) were lower than 0.85. For the overall Early Learning Composite, 17 of 18 were 0.85 orhigher.

Standard errors of measurement (SEm) are provided for each scale by age group. The SEmsrange from 2.8 to 6.9.

Test–retest reliability was evaluated with 50 children from 1 to 24 months of age and 47 chil-dren from 25 to 56 months of age. The retest interval ranged from approximately 1 to 2 weeks witha median of 7 days. For children from 1 to 24 months of age, correlations for the scales of Gross Mo-tor, Visual Reception, and Expressive Language ranged from 0.85 to 0.96. Fine Motor and Recep-tive Language correlations were less than 0.85. Correlations for the four scales appropriate for chil-dren from 25 to 56 months were all in the 70s.

Interscorer reliabilities are reported for four age groups and range from 0.91 to 0.99. The num-ber of scorers involved, however, is not reported.

Validity

In terms of construct validity, the theoretical basis for the Mullen Scales of Early Learning isproblematic. The scales are based on the author’s conception of intelligence for young children andresults are said to be useful in planning individualized instructional programs. Sources cited in sup-port of the theory are nonrefereed, either unpublished or from the earlier version of the manual forthis scale published by the author. The lack of supportive data for the theory is a concern. Further, inthe manual the scales are said to “allow practitioners to analyze how a child processes information”(p. 5) and to “target intrasensory or intersensory processing” (p. 8). “The identification of a child’slearning style is a primary consideration” (p. 19). Several reviews of the research as well as a com-prehensive meta-analysis of 39 studies on the modality model to determine individual learning styles(Kavale & Forness, 1987) have shown that results do “not render support for the effectiveness of themodality model” (Kavale & Forness, 1987, p. 237) for testing or planning instruction.

380 Test Reviews

WD5960.379-384 8/18/97 2:23 PM Page 380

Construct validity is addressed in the manual by showing that scores increase with age and thatscales correlate with each other at low to moderate levels. A factor analysis showed only one factorwas extracted at each age level.

In terms of concurrent validity, low to moderate correlations were found between results fromthe Mullen Scales and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1969) Mental DevelopmentIndex and the Psychomotor Development Index. High correlations were found for the two languagescales of the Mullen Scales and the Preschool Language Assessment (Zimmerman, Steiner, Evatt, &Pond, 1979). Correlations ranged from 0.65 to 0.82 for results of the Mullen Scales Fine Motor Scaleand the Peabody Fine Motor Scale (Folio & Fewell, 1983).

For predictive validity, results from the Mullen Scales given to children at 4 or 5 years of agewere compared to results from the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Nurss & McGauvran, 1976) givenabout 12 months later. Ten of the 16 correlations, however, were less than 0.40. A study by Schraed-er (1993) found that the Mullen Scales identified about two-thirds of very-low-birthweight childrenwho later experienced failure when in kindergarten through second grade. Vohr, Garcia–Coll, andOh (1988, 1989) found that at two years of age children small for gestational age scored significantlylower on the language scales of the Mullen than a group of children who were of appropriate weightfor gestational age and a group of normal children. Also, the children of appropriate weight for ges-tational age scored significantly lower than the normal group.

Conclusions

The administration manual for the Mullen Scales of Early Learning is clearly written and illus-trated. The many materials for the test are well made and involve tasks that should be of interest toinfants and young children. In the manual it is noted that caution is necessary when using some ofthe items that are not child safe.

Though the norm group is similar to US Census data in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and com-munity size, there are several problems with the data. Because data were collected in the 1980s, someof the data are now more than 15 years old. The sample was not representative geographically. Toomany children were from the Northeast region, too few from the South and the North/South Centralregions, and no children from the North/South Central region were included for ages birth to 14months. There were fewer than 100 participants for at least some of the age groupings for the norms,though the number for these groupings is not presented in the manual.

Although the overall results appear quite reliable, the five scales typically had less than ac-ceptable internal consistency. Interscorer reliability was high, but the number of examiners used wasnot given. Test–retest data are not presented by age level; the retest interval was quite short, and sixof nine correlations were too low. Unfortunately, no test–retest data for overall results were present-ed. Hence, stability of results over time is a concern.

The Mullen Scales are based on the author’s theory of intellectual development for infants andyoung children. This theory emphasizes modality testing, motor, and language skills. Results are saidto be useful in planning instructional programs. Although it is an intriguing approach, a considerableamount of research over time has shown that teaching to modalities has not been helpful in facili-tating development (Kavale & Forness, 1987).

Validity evidence in the manual suggests that scores increase with age and scales correlate satis-factorily with each other. Factor analysis showed that only one factor is assessed. Results seem to cor-relate satisfactorily with other similar measures. Predictive validity data are, however, few and weak.

Because of problems with technical adequacy, the Mullen Scales are not recommended for useas a primary measure in eligibility decisions. Because of problems with predictive validity and lackof support for the theory on which the test is based, these scales are not recommended for use in plan-ning individualized instructional programs. Further, with the ceiling and basal rules, there would not

Test Reviews 381

WD5960.379-384 8/18/97 2:23 PM Page 381

be enough items to provide a sufficient sample of skills to use as a basis for planning individual in-structional programs.

SBJ

ReferencesBayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development, San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Folio, M. R., & Fewell, R. R. (1983). Cognitive Development. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Ex-

ceptional Children, 54, 228–239.Nurss, J. R., & McGauvran, M. E. (1976). Metropolitan Readiness Tests. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Schraeder, B. R. (1993). Assessment of measures to detect preschool academic risk in very-low-birthweight children.

Nursing Research, 42, 17–21.Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V. G., Evatt, R. L., & Pond, R. E. (1979). Preschool Language Assessment. Columbus, OH:

Charles E. Merrill.

Brigance, Albert. (1994). Brigance Diagnostic Life Skills Inventory. North Billerica, MA: Cur-riculum Associates, Inc.

As with other Brigance inventories, this is a criterion-referenced measure designed to determineskills that have been learned and those that need to be taught. According to the manual, the Life SkillsInventory (LSI) can be used in adult basic education programs, secondary special education, voca-tional education, and in programs with English as a second language. Purposes for using the inven-tory are to obtain information to plan programs and to monitor student progress.

Skills assessed are those used in everyday situations that involve “listening, speaking, reading,writing, comprehending, and computing” (p. v). The time required varies considerably from 10 minupward depending on the person tested and the amount of information needed for instructional plan-ning. Though primarily administered individually, some parts can be given to groups.

Materials include the examiner’s manual and a protocol, called the Learner Record Book. Thesame protocol can be used several times to monitor progress for an individual by using a differentcolor pencil each time and dating the record book. Depending upon the sections used, some pagesmay need to be copied for the student. No special training is required for using the inventory, but itis suggested that testing be done under the supervision of a “professional” (p. v).

Description of Sections

The difficulty level of the material ranges from grade two level through grade eight. The sec-tions given, and how often the LSI is used, are based on the needs of the student and the program.

Starting points for assessment can be based on prior knowledge of the student or results fromthe Quick-Screen, which is a part of the inventory. To save testing time, skills that are known to bemastered should be circled so that these skills do not have to be tested formally.

This comprehensive inventory assesses the following areas: Speaking and Listening Skills,Functional Writing Skills, Words on Common Signs and Warning Labels, Telephone Skills, Money

382 Test Reviews

WD5960.379-384 8/18/97 2:23 PM Page 382