7 New Visions In-School Project using Audio-Visual Entrainment

On September 02, 2019 in

New Visions Charter School 9532 Virginia Avenue South

1800 Second Street Northeast Bloomington, MN 55438
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418
Phone: 612-789-1236 Phone: 952-944-1113
Fax: 952-944-9796
Email: [email protected]
New Visions Charter School
NeuroTechnology Innovation Grant
AVE Project Summary Report—DRAFT
July 2006

Section I: Overview
New Visions Charter School submitted a grant proposal in Summer 2003 to obtain funds for the replication
of the school’s Audio-Visual Entrainment (AVE) and EEG neurofeedback program in several Minnesota
schools (hereafter referred to as AVE training).

The programs are currently being implemented at New Visions Charter School to assist students with learning and behavior problems so they can more readily focus on learning activities within the school setting. AVE “is a strategy to accompany other strategies used by special educators and related staff to support attainment of goals and objectives that address [behaviors]” such as lack of concentration, lack of motivation, anger management issues, poor social boundaries, lack of on-task behaviors, lack of focus, and need for reduction in anxiety (AVE Training Manual). Specifically, “AVE uses a carefully designed combination of pulsing light and music to train the brain to find and sustain
efficient regulation.

The AVE unit is programmed to lead a person’s brain through a broad range of frequencies and eventually settle on brain wave activity that results in behavioral flexibility and resilience (Original Grant Application, 2003).” Specific outcomes were identified and evaluated for the grant. However, other areas not included in the grant evaluation were of interest to New Visions personnel and area addressed
in an addendum to the report.
The scope of the grant as proposed was far-reaching and broad, suggesting that behavior changes and
academic gains result for students who participate in the AVE training. Given the parameters of the grant
(funding and time span) assessment of both behavior and academic change was not feasible. In order to focus
the evaluation on the underlying thesis of the AVE training (that the intervention allows students to focus
more effectively) and to most accurately assess the effectiveness of the intervention, the evaluator and grant
members agreed that this first external evaluation of AVE would focus primarily on changes in behavior for
students involved in the AVE program at the chosen sites.
The project was initially slated to take place during the 2003-2004 school year. Because of changes made to
refine the scope of the grant and because of issues around school recruitment, the director requested a nocost
extension to complete the activities during the 2004-2005 school year. This report provides a summary
of grant-related outcomes. The attached addendum addresses data gathered for additional outcomes
identified by New Visions.
New Visions Charter School
NeuroTechnology Innovation Grant
AVE Project Summary Report—DRAFT
July 2006
Lange Consultants (DRAFT) 3
Original Evaluation Approach. The following evaluation questions were identified as central to assessing
the effectiveness of the AVE Project.
1. To what extent were the grant activities implemented according to the original proposal (at each of
the chosen sites)?
a. Was the training completed according to a specified plan and goals?
b. Were the participating staff members qualified to carry out the intervention upon completing
the plan?
c. To what extent was mentoring conducted at each of the sites and with whom?
d. Was the room specified for the AVE training provided at each site and did it meet the
intervention criteria?
2. What are the characteristics of the participating students?
a. What are their age, gender, learning or behavior issues?
b. What is the targeted behavior or skill that the intervention is intended to affect?
3. What are the expected outcomes for students participating in the intervention?
4. To what extent were the expected outcomes met for the participating students?
5. How did the expected outcomes differ based upon the sites and the site’s involvement in training and
mentoring?
6. How satisfied were the participants, their parents, and the staff members with the intervention?

Attention Deficit Disorders or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders would be included in the study.
While students with a variety of other diagnoses (e.g. Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Learning Disabilities,
etc.) participated in AVE at the sites, data were collected primarily with the target group in mind. However,
several pieces of information were collected for all participating students. For this summary evaluation report,
data for students identified for the evaluation (“Evaluation Group”) are presented in this section (Section II).
Results for additional students (where data exist) are reported in the Addendum. A summary of student
characteristics (both groups) is included below.
Table 1: Summary of Student Characteristics
Student Characteristic Evaluation Group (n=50)
Non-evaluation Group  (n=20)
Combined (n=70)
Gender 22% Female 30% Female 24% Female
Grade Level K-2: 18%
3-6: 56%
7-10: 26%
K-2: 20%
3-6: 80%
K-2: 19%
3-6: 63%
7-10: 19%
Diagnosis Pre ADHD/EBD (alone or in some combination)*
Diagnosis Post * * *
Medication Pre/Post * * *
Number of AVE Sessions (minimum  required: 40)
Average: 43 sessions

(Data avail for 41 students)
(Data Available for 15 students)
(Data available for 56 students)
Reading 54% 67% 57%
L/D Math 29% 20% 27%
EBD 61% 20% 50%
Speech 7% 20% 11%
Hearing 0% 7% 2%
Years of Special Education
Average: 4.3 years  Range: 1-8 years
Average: 3 years  Range: 1-8 years
Average: 4 years  Range: 1-8 years
*Incomplete Data
Note: Ns indicate number of students for whom demographic data are available. The number of students administered various assessments may vary.

Desired Outcome Indicator Data Source
Improved Impulse Control
Compliance with IEP Goals and Teacher report of behaviors pre/post IEP Goals
ADHDT pre-post (Impulsivity Subtest and Overall Score)
Teacher Satisfaction Survey
Decrease in Anxiety Report of decreased anxiety
Student Anxiety Survey (RCMAS) prepost
Increased Academic Engagement
Teachers reports of Academic Engagement
Classroom Teacher ADHDT pre-post  (Impulsivity Subset)
Question 3-4 Findings
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Test (ADHDT). In order to measure changes in impulse
control as well as changes in behaviors generally associated with ADHD, the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder Test (ADHDT) was completed by both classroom teachers and special education teachers for each
child participating in the AVE project. The ADHDT is a standardized, norm-referenced test that contributes
to the diagnosis of students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Gilliam, 1995).

The test includes three subtests: Hyperactivity, Impulsivity, and Inattention. Raw scores are translated to standard
scores for the three subtests. The sum of the three subtests can then be translated to an ADHD Quotient (an
overall assessment of behavior). According to the creators of the assessment, this ADHD Quotient is the
most accurate means for using the measure to assess the probability that a student has ADHD. Guidelines are
provided for determining whether student behaviors fall in a high or low range of severity, and thus,
probability of representing ADHD. The instrument was completed by teachers on a pre and post-test basis.
The table below shows the percentage of students in the evaluation group whose baseline and post-AVE
scores are considered average or highly indicative of ADHD. Assessments completed by classroom teachers
and special education teachers were analyzed separately due to varying levels of exposure to the students and
potential variance in perspective based on expertise (i.e. what a classroom teacher may judge as
inattentiveness may vary widely from what a special education teacher deems inattentiveness). Findings are
given for both the ADHD Quotient and the Impulsivity Subtest (to address improved impulse control and
behaviors generally related to academic engagement).
Table 2: ADHDT Summary Scores (Evaluation Group)
Percent of students falling into Average or High Probability
Range – ADHD Quotient
Rater Pre-AVE Post AVE
Classroom Teacher 48% (N of cases=27) 44% (N of cases=27)
Special Education Teachers 63% (N of cases=30) 27% (N of cases=30)
Percent of students falling into Average or High Probability Range –Impulsivity Subtest
Classroom Teacher 59% (N of cases =27) 52% (N of cases =27)
Special Education Teacher 63% (N of cases =30) 43% (N of cases =30)
• The percentage of students rated as exhibiting behaviors indicating probable ADHD was reduced
between the pre and post-AVE assessment points.
• Reduction in impulsive behaviors, a stated desired outcome, was also evident with the percentage of
average or high probability cases falling 7% to 20% from pre to post-AVE assessment (depending on
teacher type).
Teacher ratings were also reviewed to note the percentage of students whose scores at the post assessment
caused them to change from the average/high probability group to the below average/low probability group
(or visa versa).

Table 3 summarizes these findings for the ADHD Quotient and the Impulsivity Subtest.
Table 3: Pre to Post AVE ADHD Quotient Change (Evaluation Group)
ADHD Quotient Rater Change from Avg/High Probability to Below Avg/Low Probability
Change from Below Avg/Low Probability to Avg/High Probability
Classroom Teacher 39% (N of cases=13) 21% (N of cases=14)
Special Education Teachers 58% (N of cases=19) 0% (N of cases=11)
Impulsivity Subtest Change from Avg/High Probability to Below Avg/Low Probability

Change from Below Avg/Low Probability to Avg/High Probability

Classroom Teacher 19% (N of cases =16) 18% (N of cases =11)

Special Education Teacher 32% (N of cases =19) 0% (N of cases =11)
Note: Ns represent number of cases in Avg/High Probability category or Below Avg/Low Probability category from baseline who were also rated at the post test period.

• Both classroom teachers and special education teachers (to a greater extent) rated a notable percentage
of students as showing reduced ADHD behaviors overall and in terms of impulsive behaviors
specifically.
• This is compared favorably to the small percentage of students rated as showing increased ADHD
behaviors between pre and post-AVE assessments.
Individual Education Plan Review. The AVE project director suggested that a review of IEP goals would
be the most effective means of identifying behaviors to be targeted by AVE. This was suggested in lieu of
asking AVE providers to identify target behaviors because of the project director’s suggestion that specific
behaviors would be difficult to isolate given the far-reaching effects of AVE and variance in student
reactions. According to teacher records (N=49), 92% of students in the evaluation group achieved their
primary IEP goals. However, given the wide range in record keeping and lack of standardized rubric between
the schools, this finding should be interpreted with extreme caution. In addition, many stated goals were not
specifically related to ADHD behaviors and over half of the forms submitted to the evaluator listed the goals
only generically (“Goal 1,” “Goal 2,” “Reading” etc).
Classroom Teacher Survey. In spring 2005 (post-AVE) classroom teachers were asked to review a list of
behaviors. (The list was generated by AVE project staff based on typical behaviors targeted by AVE.) For
each student, teachers were asked to identify behaviors that were typical of that student in fall 2005 (pre-
AVE). Then, they were asked to rate the level of improvement they noticed by spring 2005. While not
isolating AVE as causal, this provides one indicator of teacher perceptions of change in impulsivity behaviors
in the classroom. The following table provides a summary of the results from the survey.

Table 4: Classroom Teacher Survey Findings (Evaluation Group)
Behavior (N=30) n
Much Improvement
Some Improvement
Neither better nor worse
Became a little worse
Became much worse
Fails to finish things 25 0% 64% 32% 4% 0%
Acts without thinking (impulsive) 23 0% 74% 22% 4% 0%
Has trouble paying attention 22 5% 55% 41% 0% 0%
Can’t remember instructions 20 10% 40% 50% 0% 0%
Disturbs other students 19 0% 47% 42% 11% 0%
Easily frustrated in efforts 18 6% 72% 17% 6% 0%
Daydreams 14 7% 36% 57% 0% 0%
Worries more than others, seems anxious 12 25% 33% 42% 0% 0%
Can’t sit still 12 0% 42% 58% 0% 0%
Has temper tantrums 12 8% 42% 42% 8% 0%
Mood changes quickly and drastically 12 17% 33% 42% 8% 0%
Feelings easily hurt 11 0% 55% 45% 0% 0%
Seems jumpy, can’t relax 10 0% 40% 60% 0% 0%
Fights often 10 20% 50% 30% 0% 0%
Fearful of new situations or people 8 38% 38% 25% 0% 0%
Basically an unhappy person 8 13% 13% 63% 13% 0%
Cries easily and often 8 13% 38% 50% 0% 0%
Tells lies or stories that aren’t true 7 29% 14% 57% 0% 0%
• As depicted in the table, among the most commonly cited problem behaviors for the evaluation group
were inability to finish things, inattentiveness, and impulsivity.
• For those behaviors most often cited as typifying students at the time prior to AVE (n=22-25), teachers
noted some or much improvement in approximately 50-75% of cases.
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS). The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
(RCMAS) is a norm-referenced instrument intended to help teachers detect and understand the nature of
anxiety manifested in their students. The self-report scale contains 37 items and is designed for children and
adolescents (6-19 years old). The scale produces a Total Anxiety Score as well as three anxiety subscales
(Physiological Anxiety, Worry/Oversensitivity, Social Concerns/Concentration).

In addition, nine items are included that constitute the Lie subscale. These items are “designed to detect acquiescence, social desirability,
or the deliberate faking of responses (RCMAS Manual).” As a general rule, the authors suggest that a standard score of 14 or above on the Lie subscale may indicate inaccurate responses. For the purposes of the evaluation, these cases were removed from data analysis. Total Anxiety scale scores greater than 60 indicate a high level of anxiety and, the authors suggest, warrant further investigation. The table below describes pre- AVE and post-AVE results for participating students in terms of Total Anxiety score.
Table 5: Percent of students whose Total Anxiety scale score exceeded 60 at pre and post-AVE (Evaluation Group) Assessment Period
N Total Anxiety >60
Pre-AVE 27 22%
Post-AVE 28 18%
• Overall, there was a slight reduction in the proportion of high anxiety reports from pre to post-AVE.
• Pre-post scores were available for 25 students. Of those 25, 68% (n=17) showed a reduction in Total
Anxiety Scale Scores.

 

After consultation with the project evaluator, it was determined that classroom and special education teachers were the most highly involved with AVE and, therefore, the most essential resources for feedback at this juncture. Ideally, students and parents would be included in future
evaluations.

Special Education Teacher Survey. Special education teachers, those administering AVE, were asked to
complete a survey indicating their satisfaction with various aspects of the training, implementation, and
effects of AVE on the students with whom they worked. A summary of findings from the survey (spring
2005) is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Special Education Teacher Survey Findings
Rating Area (n=13-14)
Extremely Satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral Dissatisfied

Extremely Dissatisfied
Does Not Apply
Overall satisfaction with the process of  bringing AVE to your school 31% 62% 8% 0% 0% 0%
Overall satisfaction with the implementation of AVE at your school this year (please comment) 23% 69% 8% 0% 0% 0%
The amount of information offered during the formal training sessions 36% 50% 7% 7% 0% 0%
The amount of mentoring offered 29% 50% 14% 0% 0% 7%
The quality of mentoring offered 29% 50% 14% 0% 0% 7%
The clarity of instructions for bringing AVE to your school (logistics, room set up etc) 36% 29% 21% 7% 0% 7%
The amount of training offered prior to implementing AVE (if any additional training was needed after the formal training session) 31% 31% 8% 8% 0% 23%
• Special education teachers were generally very satisfied with the level of training and mentoring they received.
• When asked, in a separate question (not shown in table), about their overall impressions of the AVE project , special education teachers indicated that they were very satisfied with the process of bringing AVE to their school and implementation of the project (92% indicated they were “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” for both questions).
• When asked to rate the AVE project in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, 86% of special education teachers rated it as a net gain for their school. Classroom Teacher Survey. Questions from the classroom teacher survey (returned in spring 2005) also directly addressed their levels of satisfaction with the AVE project.
• When asked how positive the effects of AVE were for their students (rating each student individually) teachers, 70% indicated that they felt there was a positive effect for students in the evaluation group.
• When asked, overall, to what extent they felt AVE had a positive effect on the classroom behavior of participating students (a great deal, some, a little, or none), 53% of teachers indicated some or a great deal of positive effect.

The preceding report provides a summary of grant-related evaluation activities for the implementation of
Audio-Visual Entrainment (AVE) in eight Minnesota schools during the 2004-2005 school year. Findings
indicate that there were moderate reductions in anxiety symptoms and ADHD related behaviors as reported
by teacher and students in the evaluation group. Those implementing AVE were largely satisfied with the
amount of training and mentoring they received and most felt bringing AVE to the school was a positive
experience for the school (a net gain); and, over two thirds of classroom teachers reported that they thought
AVE had a positive effect on students in the evaluation group.
However, several factors limit the conclusions that can be made based on these findings. Specifically,
difficulties recruiting sites to participate in the study limited the number of students available for evaluation
group. (Originally slated to be a larger group of students at 10 sites. See grant proposal and revised grant
submission for details.) While it was reported by the project director that some sites may have been inhibited
from participating by the extra work involved in submitting evaluation data, this higher involvement would be
necessary to draw any broader conclusions about the efficacy of the training. In addition, while all attempts
were made to collect data in a consistent, uniform manner, there was some difficulty (as noted above)
isolating specific behaviors to be targeted by AVE. In order to measure outcomes from the AVE program
accurately, it will be necessary to identify specific behaviors for each child that are expected to change as a
result of AVE. Using the IEP may prove to be a useful tool for measuring this change eventually. However, it
will only be reliable if a uniform protocol for recording goals is paired with a rubric for standardized
measurement of progress.

As provided in the current evaluation, the data were not useable. Finally, it is
difficult to link changes in symptoms or behaviors that occurred in the evaluation group due to the potential
interference of other factors (e.g. natural changes due to development, increased familiarity with school and
teachers, or implementation of another program that may affect the targeted behaviors). Because of these
reasons, this type of project lends itself well to a control group design. An evaluation using this model would
be best suited for efforts to measure the effectiveness of AVE in the future.
Overview
As mentioned in the evaluation report, some students participated in the AVE training who did not qualify
for the evaluation because they were not formally designated as having emotional behavior disorders or
health impairments in the areas of ADD or ADHD. Data were collected for these additional students in
some areas, however, and overall results are briefly summarized here. In addition, New Visions had questions
outside of those designated in the grant evaluation. Those data are also presented briefly in this section.
Non-evaluation Group Findings
Non-evaluation Group: ADHDT. As explained in the previous section, the ADHDT was used to measure
change from Pre to Post-AVE in impulse control and overall ADHD behaviors. Findings for the nonevaluation
group are summarized in the table below.
Addendum Table 1: ADHDT Summary Scores (Non-evaluation Group)
Percent of students falling into Average or High Probability Range – ADHD Quotient Rater Pre-AVE Post AVE
Classroom Teacher 56% (N of cases=36) 24% (N of cases=17)
Special Education Teachers 59% (N of cases=34) 25% (N of cases=16)
Percent of students falling into Average or High Probability Range – Impulsivity Subtest
Classroom Teacher 42% (N of cases =36) 24% (N of cases =17)
Special Education Teacher 61% (N of cases =33) 19% (N of cases =16)
• The percentage of students rated as exhibiting behaviors indicating probable ADHD was reduced between the pre and post-AVE assessment points.
• A substantial reduction in impulsive behaviors was also evident for the non-evaluation group with the percentage of average or high probability cases falling 18% to 42% from pre to post-AVE assessment (depending on teacher type).
• Given the attrition in available data between pre and post-AVE (average loss = 16 cases, 52%), the results should be interpreted cautiously.
• Given the extremely low numbers of students who have data at both time points (n’s as low as 2 for some subgroups), pre to post AVE changes in ADHD Quotient range (reported for the evaluation group) are not reported.

Non-evaluation Group: RCMAS. As described above, the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
(RCMAS) was used to measure levels of anxiety among students participating in AVE training. Again,
students with a standard score of 14 or above on the Lie subscale were excluded from data analysis. The
percentage of non-evaluation students with Total Anxiety scale scores greater than 60 (indicating a high level
of anxiety) are reported in the table below.
Addendum Table 2: Percent of students whose Total Anxiety scale score exceeded 60 at pre and post-AVE (Non-evaluation Group)
Assessment Period N Total Anxiety >60
Pre-AVE 28 39%
Post-AVE 7 0%
• Due to significant attrition in the non-evaluation group (75%) drawing dramatic conclusions from these
results is not warranted. However, of the seven students with scores at both time points, five showed
some reduction in Total Anxiety Scale Scores.
• Students who were present for the pre-AVE assessment but not the post-AVE assessment (n=19),
represent 64% of the “Total Anxiety >60” group from the pre-AVE assessment period.
Non-evaluation Group: Classroom Teacher Survey. Teachers filled out the Classroom Teacher Survey
(described in evaluation report) for several students in the non-evaluation group (n=16). Again, teachers were
asked to identify traits or behaviors that described students in fall 2005 (pre-AVE) and then to rate the level
of improvement in those areas as of spring 2005 (post-AVE). Results for the non-evaluation group are
summarized below.

Addendum Table 3: Classroom Teacher Survey Findings (Non-evaluation Group)
Behavior (N=16) n
Much Improvement
Some Improvement
Neither better nor worse
Became a little worse
Became much worse
Has trouble paying attention 14 0% 57% 29% 7% 7%
Can’t remember instructions 14 0% 57% 29% 14% 0%
Worries more than others, seems anxious 13 23% 15% 62% 0% 0%
Fails to finish things 12 0% 42% 33% 17% 0%
Acts without thinking (impulsive) 11 9% 36% 36% 18% 0%
Can’t sit still 11 27% 0% 45% 27% 0%
Daydreams 11 0% 55% 18% 27% 0%
Easily frustrated in efforts 11 0% 45% 36% 18% 0%
Feelings easily hurt 10 0% 20% 70% 10% 0%
Seems jumpy, can’t relax 9 11% 22% 44% 22% 0%
Disturbs other students 9 11% 0% 44% 33% 11%
Mood changes quickly and drastically 9 0% 11% 67% 22% 0%
Fearful of new situations or people 7 0% 14% 86% 0% 0%
Basically an unhappy person 7 0% 71% 14% 14% 0%
Tells lies or stories that aren’t true 7 0% 14% 57% 14% 14%
Fights often 6 0% 0% 67% 17% 17%
Has temper tantrums 5 0% 0% 60% 20% 20%
Cries easily and often 5 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
• Among the most commonly cited problem behaviors for the non-evaluation group were difficulty
paying attention, difficulty remembering instructions, and excessive worry.
• For those behaviors most often cited as typifying students at the time prior to AVE (n=13-14), teachers
noted some or much improvement in approximately 38-57% of cases.
Additional Data: Attendance. In addition to the above data sources, project staff were also interested in
reviewing attendance records to determine if participation in AVE appeared to have a significantly positive or
negative effect on student attendance. Because training in AVE spanned a significant portion the school year,
a measure of post-AVE attendance provided data for very few actual school days. Because of this, attendance
was reviewed for the pre-training period (average of 68 days) and the period during AVE-training (average of
74 days).
• Beginning average attendance for students in the evaluation group (n=49) was 96% (range: 84-100%);
average attendance during AVE training was 95% (range 86-100%). Although no strong trends were
evident, 31% of students in the evaluation group showed some improvement in attendance during the
AVE training period.
• Beginning average attendance for students in the non-evaluation group (n=8) was 97% (range 93-
100%). Average attendance for this group during AVE training was 87% (n=10; range: 42-98%). Of
students with data at both time points, one student showed increased attendance.
Additional Data: Slosson (SORT-R). The SORT-R has been used by New Visions to measure academic
growth as a result of AVE training. The SORT-R is not intended for use as a diagnostic instrument or for
measurement of reading comprehension levels. Instead, it is intended for screening purposes and for use as a
quick estimate “to target word recognition levels in children and adults (SORT-R manual, 2002).” The SORTR
is standardized and raw scores can be translated to grade and age equivalents, standard scores, and national
percentiles.

Although academic growth was not identified as a key outcome in the grant evaluation (which
focused primarily on behavior change) and although the measure was not vetted for use in the evaluation,
AVE Project staff were interested in documenting results from the SORT-R during the evaluation period.
SORT-R data were collected for both the evaluation group and non-evaluation group at pre and post-AVE
periods. The percentage of students whose grade equivalents fall at/above or within .5 points of their grade
level at each time point are reported in the tables below. Results for the Evaluation Group and Nonevaluation
group are reported separately.

Addendum Table 4: SORT-R Grade Equivalent Summary (Evaluation Group)
Pre-AVE Post AVE
Percent falling at/above grade level 13% (N of cases=31) 66% (N of cases=31)

Percent Falling within ½ point below grade level 16% (N of cases=31) 10% (N of cases=31)

Percent of students who were below grade level Pre-AVE who were at/above grade level Post-AVE* 27% (N of cases=26)
*Includes only students for whom pre and post-AVE scores are available
Addendum Table 5: SORT-R Grade Equivalent Summary (Non-evaluation Group)
Pre-AVE Post AVE**
Percent falling at/above grade level 16% (N of cases=37) 42% (N of cases=24)

Percent Falling within ½ point below grade level 8% (N of cases=37) 13% (N of cases=24)

Percent of students who were below grade level Pre-AVE who were at/above grade level Post-AVE* 21% (N of cases=19)
*Includes only students for whom pre and post-AVE scores are available
**Note high rate of attrition (n of lost cases=14). 93% of cases lost were below grade level at pre-AVE assessment.

……………………………..

References Gilliam, J.E. (1995). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Test: Examiners Manual. TX: Pro-Ed,
Inc.
Reynolds, C.R. & Richmond, B.O. (1998). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale: Manual. CA:
Western Psychological Services.
Slosson, R.L. (2002). Slosson Oral Reading Test Revised (SORT-R3): Manual. NY: Slosson
Educational Publications, Inc.