BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III (IED III)

1. Abstract

The BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III (IED III) is a comprehensive, multi-method developmental assessment battery designed for infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and young children from birth through age 7 (up to 7 years, 11 months). Conceptualized to address the diverse needs of early childhood educators, pediatric psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and early intervention specialists, the IED III comprises two distinct yet complementary configurations: the criterion-referenced BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III and the norm-referenced BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III Standardized. The instrument operationalizes early developmental progress across five primary functional domains: Physical Development (gross and fine motor skills), Language Development (receptive and expressive communication), Academic Skills/Cognitive Development (early literacy, numeracy, and general reasoning), Adaptive Behavior/Daily Living Skills, and Social and Emotional Development.

The criterion-referenced IED III utilizes an extensive hierarchy of developmental milestones arranged into Comprehensive and Supplemental Skill Sequences, allowing practitioners to identify precise instructional basals, monitor incremental growth, and develop individualized education programs (IEP) or individualized family service plans (IFSP). In contrast, the IED III Standardized extracts a focused subset of validated items yielding normative metrics, including standard scores ($M = 100, SD = 15$), percentiles, and developmental age equivalents based on a nationally representative sample of United States children. Standardized administration requires approximately 30 to 60 minutes. Psychometrically, the standardized battery demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability across age cohorts (coefficients typically ranging from .85 to .98), solid test-retest stability, inter-rater concordance, and high convergent validity with established early childhood batteries such as the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the IED III, explicating its theoretical paradigms, measurement constructs, psychometric architecture, structural validity, and clinical utility.

2. Keywords

BRIGANCE IED III, early childhood assessment, developmental screening, criterion-referenced assessment, normative standardized testing, developmental milestones, physical development, language acquisition, adaptive behavior, early intervention

3. Authors

The original conceptualization and developmental trajectory of the BRIGANCE® inventories were spearheaded by Albert H. Brigance, an educator, assessment specialist, and pioneer in early childhood special education. Over several decades, Brigance developed an array of curriculum-based and diagnostic instruments designed to operationalize observable, teachable educational milestones into granular task analyses that bridge the divide between psychological measurement and classroom instruction.

The contemporary third edition (IED III), published in 2013, was updated and standardized by the psychometric and research teams at Curriculum Associates, LLC (North Billerica, Massachusetts, United States). This revision incorporated modern psychometric modeling, updated national normative demographic sampling matching U.S. Census data, and refined alignment with early learning standards and federal mandates such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Part C and Part B). Critical independent reviews and validation oversight of the IED III have been contributed by prominent psychometricians and early childhood researchers, including Dr. Iheoma U. Iruka (Buffett Early Childhood Institute, University of Nebraska) and Dr. James P. Van Haneghan (Department of Professional Studies, University of South Alabama), whose analyses in the Mental Measurements Yearbook series continue to inform evidence-based assessment practices.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III is to serve as an authoritative, multidimensional clinical and educational measurement battery that pinpoints developmental progression, detects neurodevelopmental delays, evaluates program effectiveness, and facilitates individualized curriculum planning for children from birth through age 7. Within early childhood systems, assessment rarely conforms to a singular objective; practitioners frequently require both descriptive, formative diagnostic tools to guide daily instruction and psychometrically rigorous, norm-referenced scores to satisfy statutory qualification requirements for specialized services. The dual-component architecture of the IED III was formulated specifically to reconcile these dual clinical imperatives.

In clinical, educational, and pediatric settings, the IED III satisfies several key functions:

• Identification of Developmental Strengths and Vulnerabilities: By establishing granular developmental basals and ceilings across physical, cognitive, communication, adaptive, and socio-emotional domains, the inventory reveals isolated deficits or generalized developmental delays requiring multidisciplinary intervention.
• IDEA Part C and Part B Eligibility Determination: The IED III Standardized provides psychometrically defensible standard scores, percentile ranks, and developmental quotients needed to establish statutory eligibility for infant-toddler early intervention services (IDEA Part C) and preschool special education services (IDEA Part B).
• Formative Progress Monitoring: Utilizing a unique multi-year, color-coded tracking system, clinicians and educators can administer the criterion-referenced IED III up to six distinct times using a single record book, documenting longitudinal skill acquisition and the mastery of micro-milestones over time.
• Individualized Intervention and IEP/IFSP Goal Formulation: Because individual items within the criterion-referenced sequences correspond directly to behavioral, observable tasks, practitioners can translate assessment results directly into measurable behavioral objectives and curricular targets without requiring subjective extrapolation.
• Early Childhood Program Evaluation: Aggregated normative and criterion scores provide public early learning entities, such as Head Start and state-funded pre-kindergarten initiatives, with quantifiable data to measure child outcomes, program-level pedagogical efficacy, and annual developmental growth trajectories.

The clinical and research value of the IED III rests on its integration of naturalistic observation, direct performance assessment, and parent/caregiver report. By allowing flexible administration approaches within its criterion-referenced format while maintaining standardized elicitation protocols within its norm-referenced inventory, the battery affords clinicians the structural adaptability required to evaluate children presenting with diverse behavioral, sensory, and neurodevelopmental profiles, including Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), developmental coordination disorder, global developmental delay, and specific language impairments.

5. Psychological Construct

The BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III measures child development as an integrated, multi-domain construct rooted in human ontogeny. Rather than approaching early childhood functioning through a singular latent intelligence factor, the instrument operationalizes development into five distinct yet interdependent domains, which are further fractionated into specific clinical subdomains and behavioral skill sequences.

1. Physical Development

The Physical Development domain measures motor maturation and sensory-motor integration, partitioned into gross motor and fine motor subdomains:

• Gross Motor Skills: Assesses anti-gravity postural control, prone and supine stability, locomotion, balance, dynamic coordination, and fundamental sports-readiness milestones. Specific evaluated competencies range from neonatal head control, rolling, sitting, and reciprocal crawling to advanced motor patterns such as independent walking, stair negotiation with alternating feet, skipping, running, jumping, and bilateral coordination (e.g., catching, throwing, and kicking a ball).
• Fine Motor Skills: Focuses on distal motor control, intrinsic hand strength, visual-motor coordination, and hand-eye dexterity. Measured markers include primitive and voluntary grasping patterns (palmar vs. pincer grasp), object manipulation, voluntary release, two-handed coordination, manual dexterity using small objects (e.g., dropping pegs into boards, stringing beads), scissor mechanics, and emergent handwriting behaviors (e.g., imitation of horizontal/vertical strokes, geometric shape copying, and pencil grip maturity).

2. Language Development

The Language Development domain assesses linguistic competence, categorizing speech and communicative behavior into receptive and expressive functional streams:

• Receptive Language: Operationalizes auditory and visual language processing, comprehension of verbal commands, phonological awareness, contextual vocabulary identification, spatial/relational concepts (e.g., in, on, under), comprehension of complex multi-step syntactical structures, and auditory discrimination.
• Expressive Language: Evaluates pre-linguistic vocables (cooing, babbling, gesturing), proto-declarative and proto-imperative pointing, initial lexical development, semantic-syntactic combinations (mean length of utterance), morphological markers (plurals, verb tenses), verbal fluency, narrative articulation, personal identity identification, and communicative pragmatic adequacy.

3. Academic Skills / Cognitive Development

Cognitive maturity is appraised through a continuum transitioning from sensorimotor exploration to abstract symbolic reasoning, emergent academic literacies, and executive operational thought:

• Sensory-Cognitive Reasoning: Includes object permanence, functional cause-and-effect means-end awareness, imitation of modeled actions, visual discrimination, and classification tasks (sorting by color, shape, and size).
• Early Quantitative / Mathematical Concepts: Measures rote counting, one-to-one correspondence, cardinality, conservation of quantity, numeral recognition, ordinality, visual pattern recognition, and basic relational arithmetic operations.
• Emergent Literacy: Captures environmental print awareness, book handling skills, phonemic awareness (rhyming, onset identification), alphabet recognition (upper- and lowercase graphemes), phoneme-grapheme association, and emergent writing conventions.

4. Adaptive Behavior / Daily Living Skills

Drawing from developmental expectations of self-sufficiency, this domain evaluates personal autonomy and daily routines across four operational categories:

• Feeding and Eating: Progression from suckling and swallowing liquid/solid nutrition to finger-feeding, proficient utensil handling (spoon, fork), independent cup drinking, and mealtime table etiquette.
• Dressing and Undressing: Developmental trajectories involving cooperative dressing, fastener manipulation (zippers, snaps, large buttons, laces), orientation of footwear and clothing, and unassisted wardrobe management.
• Toileting and Hygiene: Daytime continence, communicative signaling of bodily needs, unassisted bathroom routines, wiping, clothing readjustment, hand-washing mechanics, oral dental hygiene, and general grooming autonomy.

5. Social and Emotional Development

This domain captures the psychological substrate governing relational functioning, emotional regulation, and social cognition:

• Self-Awareness and Emotional Expression: Emotional differentiation, self-recognition, affective signaling, expression of personal preferences, identification of personal affective states, and primary emotional regulation strategies.
• Interpersonal and Peer Relationships: Attachment behaviors toward primary caregivers, stranger orientation, parallel vs. associative and cooperative play styles, sharing behaviors, turn-taking, conflict resolution, empathic response to peer distress, and comprehension of social conventions and group boundaries.

6. Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III reflects an amalgamation of foundational theories in developmental psychology, cognitive development, behavioral task analysis, and ecological systems theory. Its structure rejects a purely reductionist or exclusively maturationist view, adopting instead an integrated developmental-systems framework.

Central to the cognitive and conceptual milestones within the IED III is the genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget. Piagetian theory postulates that infant and child cognitive development advances through discontinuous qualitative stages: the sensorimotor stage (birth to 2 years), the preoperational stage (2 to 7 years), and the concrete operational stage. The IED III directly operationalizes Piagetian constructs within its infant-toddler and early childhood cognitive sequences. Specifically, items evaluating object permanence, primary and secondary circular reactions, intentional means-end exploration, symbolic play, and deferred imitation reflect Piaget’s sensorimotor substages. As the inventory advances into preschool age, items evaluating perceptual egocentrism, centration, classification, seriation, and one-to-one correspondence reflect the cognitive transition into intuitive, preoperational thought.

Simultaneously, the language and early literacy architectures are informed by Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of child development. Vygotsky underscored the critical role of social interaction, mediational semiotic tools, and cultural dialogue in driving internal cognitive architecture. The IED III’s division into Comprehensive Skill Sequences (structured direct assessment) and Supplemental Skill Sequences (naturalistic, observationally mediated assessments) reflects Vygotskian tenets concerning the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The supplemental sequences allow clinicians to evaluate emerging capabilities within scaffolded play contexts, observing children’s spontaneous performance when supported by environmental artifacts and adult interactions.

Motor and physical development dimensions draw heavily from the neuromaturational paradigms formulated by Arnold Gesell. Gesell’s maturational theory established that neuromuscular growth progresses along predictable, invariant biological vectors: cephalocaudal (head-to-foot directional control) and proximodistal (inward-to-outward trunk-to-extremity control). The gross and fine motor hierarchies within the IED III mirror these biological gradients, sequencing items systematically from axial head elevation and trunk control to distal, isolated digit manipulation and complex visually coordinated motor sequences.

From an educational measurement perspective, the criterion-referenced mechanics of the battery stem directly from applied behavioral analysis and task-analytic instructional theory (Robert Glaser, B.F. Skinner). Criterion-referenced assessment posits that developmental tasks can be broken down into discrete, sequentially dependent, observable, and measurable behavioral component skills. In the IED III, target skills are not isolated artifacts; they represent links within an unbroken developmental chain. Clinicians establish a basal of consistently mastered components, identify the current instructional threshold, and target succeeding items for systematic intervention.

Finally, the inclusion of adaptive behavior and socio-emotional subscales aligns with Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Bronfenbrenner maintained that a child’s psychological trajectory cannot be divorced from microsystemic contexts—specifically, the immediate interactive environments of home, family routines, preschool classrooms, and peer circles. The IED III captures adaptive daily living routines and social behaviors through contextual informant reporting and naturalistic functional observation, recognizing that competence is demonstrated within real-world socio-cultural contexts.

7. Validity

The psychometric integrity of the BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III Standardized was established through validation studies documented in its technical manual (published in 2013 by Curriculum Associates). Validation procedures were designed to generate multi-faceted evidence supporting the appropriateness, utility, and defensibility of clinical and educational inferences derived from its scores, aligned with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME).

Content Validity

Content validity was established through systematic curriculum cross-referencing and expert panel oversight. Item pools were derived from comprehensive reviews of state early learning standards, national Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Frameworks, national pediatric milestone publications, and federal early intervention criteria. Panels of developmental psychologists, early childhood special educators, bilingual diagnosticians, and pediatric therapists reviewed item pools to ensure developmental relevance, clarity, sequential accuracy, and freedom from cultural, geographic, racial, and socioeconomic bias.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is substantiated primarily by developmental progression across age cohorts. Because the target constructs represent developmental milestones, raw score averages must demonstrate significant, monotonically increasing trajectories as age increases. Statistical analyses across the normative sample confirmed robust positive correlations between chronological age and domain raw scores ($r$ values typically exceeding .80, $p < .001$), confirming that the inventory accurately captures developmental maturation.

Construct validity is further demonstrated by contrasting clinical subgroups with neurotypical cohorts. Controlled validation studies comparing children with confirmed diagnoses (such as global developmental delays, autism spectrum disorder, or specific language impairment) against age-matched typical peers demonstrated significant between-group score discrepancies. Clinically identified cohorts performed significantly lower across composite standard scores ($d > 1.20$, representing large effect sizes), demonstrating the battery’s sensitivity to atypical developmental profiles.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

To verify convergent validity, the IED III Standardized was evaluated alongside recognized gold-standard instruments measuring overlapping developmental domains. Empirical studies yielded strong concurrent correlations:

• Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III): Correlations between matching domains (IED III Physical Development vs. Bayley-III Motor Scale; IED III Academic/Cognitive vs. Bayley-III Cognitive Scale) ranged from $r = .72$ to $r = .86$, supporting domain convergence.
• Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II): The IED III Adaptive Behavior domain demonstrated high convergent correlation with the Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Composite ($r = .76$ to $r = .84$).
• Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition (PLS-5): The IED III Language Development domain scores correlated robustly ($r = .78$ to $r = .88$) with the PLS-5 Total Language Score.

Critical Psychometric Considerations

Despite these strengths, independent reviews (such as those by Dr. Iheoma U. Iruka and Dr. James P. Van Haneghan in the Mental Measurements Yearbook) have noted certain limitations. While the IED III Standardized possesses documented psychometric properties, its criterion-referenced counterpart (the broader IED III binder) relies primarily on content validation and logical task analyses rather than extensive empirical reliability coefficients. Reviewers recommend that when high-stakes administrative determinations are made—such as formal exclusion or eligibility for specialized funding—clinicians should rely on the validated IED III Standardized scores rather than unstandardized criterion-referenced milestone tallies.

8. Reliability

The reliability parameters of the BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III Standardized were estimated using multiple psychometric approaches, including internal consistency, test-retest stability, and inter-examiner reproducibility, based on the national standardization sample.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency of the subtests and domain composites was calculated across discrete chronological age strata using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ($lpha$) and split-half reliability coefficients adjusted via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. The composite standard scores across the five standardized domains exhibit high reliability coefficients across age levels:

• Physical Development Composite: $\alpha = .88 – .95$
• Language Development Composite: $\alpha = .90 – .97$
• Academic / Cognitive Development Composite: $\alpha = .91 – .98$
• Adaptive Behavior Composite: $\alpha = .86 – .94$
• Social and Emotional Development Composite: $\alpha = .85 – .93$

The Overall Early Development Composite consistently meets or exceeds $\alpha = .95$, satisfying stringent psychometric thresholds for individual diagnostic decision-making ($lpha ge .90$). The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) remains low, offering clinicians narrow, reliable confidence intervals (typically 90% and 95%) around standard scores.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability was investigated through retesting a stratified subsample of neurotypical and clinically identified children across an interval of 1 to 3 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients ($r$) for domain scores ranged between $.82$ and $.94$, indicating that scores remain stable over brief testing intervals and are minimally influenced by temporary state fluctuations or fatigue.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Given that early childhood assessments frequently involve naturalistic observation and behavioral scoring, inter-rater reliability was examined by having two independent clinicians score identical administrations simultaneously or via video recordings. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) across all five domain ratings consistently exceeded $.90$ (range: $.91 – .97$), indicating that standardized administrative prompts and scoring rubrics reduce examiner subjectivity.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III Standardized was examined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) during the 2013 standardization program to determine whether the domain structure aligns with the theoretical model.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Modeling

Structural equation modeling was applied to test competing theoretical configurations across various age brackets (infancy/toddlerhood vs. preschool/early primary):

• Model 1: Unidimensional Model. Posited that all items load onto a single general developmental capacity factor ($g$). While this model accounted for substantial common variance—reflecting the integrated nature of early neural development—it demonstrated inadequate overall model fit indices across older age cohorts.
• Model 2: Oblique Five-Factor Domain Model. Specified the five theoretical constructs: Physical Development, Language Development, Academic/Cognitive Development, Adaptive Behavior, and Social-Emotional Development, allowing factors to correlate. This model demonstrated superior fit across age bands.
• Model 3: Hierarchical / Second-Order Model. Positioned an overarching general developmental index at the apex, subsuming the five primary first-order domains. This model exhibited acceptable fit and forms the theoretical basis for reporting both individual domain standard scores and an overall composite index.

Goodness-of-Fit Parameters

The five-factor correlated model demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit indices across normative samples:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values ranged from $.93$ to $.97$ across age strata, exceeding the conventional $.90$ threshold.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently recorded between $.92$ and $.96$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates ranged between $.042$ and $.058$, with 90% confidence intervals remaining below the $.08$ cutoff, indicating acceptable error approximation.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Maintained below $.050$.

Factor Loadings

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) across respective domains were consistently strong. Motor subtests loaded on the Physical factor at values between $.65$ and $.88$. Receptive and expressive items loaded on the Language factor between $.70$ and $.91$. Emergent math and literacy markers displayed loadings on the Academic/Cognitive factor between $.68$ and $.93$. Cross-loadings across domains were modest, supporting the discriminant validity of the individual subscales while confirming their collective alignment with global developmental progression.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III is a comprehensive assessment battery packaged as a clinical kit. Below are the operational details regarding its structure, administration, scoring, and format:

• Test Classification: Multi-method developmental assessment battery combining criterion-referenced curriculum-based assessment with norm-referenced standardized measurement.
• Target Population: Children from birth through chronological age 7 years, 11 months (0 to 7:11).
• Administration Format: Individual administration conducted by a trained examiner. Combines direct child performance elicitation, naturalistic behavioral observation, and semi-structured parent/caregiver report.
• Kit Components and Materials:
  • IED III Criterion-Referenced Inventory Binder: A large, durable ring binder containing detailed assessment skill sequences, administrative instructions, environmental staging guidelines, and instructional recommendations.
  • IED III Standardized Manual & Standardization Binder: Contains the normative scoring tables, standard score conversion charts, psychometric profiles, and explicit, uniform testing prompts.
  • Child Record Books: Color-coded tracking record booklets allowing up to six sequential administrations per child across multiple academic years.
  • Standardized Assessment Record Books: Specific scoring booklets structured for recording basal and ceiling performance during standardized normative testing.
  • Developmental Manipulative Kit: Standardized testing artifacts, including counting blocks, sorting tokens, nesting cups, child-safe scissors, picture prompt cards, beads with threading laces, and related motor/cognitive stimuli.
• Assessment Organization & Sequences:
  • Comprehensive Skill Sequences: Step-by-step, incremental behavioral milestone breakdowns utilized for instructional tracking and granular IEP goal establishment.
  • Supplemental Skill Sequences: Alternative, play-based observation sequences designed to assess skills in less structured, naturalistic environments.
• Administration Time:
  • IED III Standardized: Approximately 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the child’s age, attention span, and baseline skill level.
  • IED III Criterion-Referenced: Untimed and flexible; administration can occur across multiple instructional sessions or focus on specific clinical domains.
• Basal and Ceiling Rules: Standardized administrations utilize strict basal thresholds (typically a specified number of consecutive successfully passed items, such as 3 consecutive items) and ceiling limits (a specified number of consecutive zero-scored items) to minimize testing fatigue.
• Scoring Models:
  • Criterion-Referenced Format: Items are scored behaviorally as Mastered (demonstrated independently), Emerging (partially demonstrated or requiring scaffolding), or Not Yet Mastered. Scores are color-coded in tracking booklets to display progress over time.
  • Standardized Format: Raw scores are calculated via basal/ceiling thresholds and converted using normative tables into standard scores ($M = 100, SD = 15$), percentile ranks ($1^{\text{st}}$ to $99^{\text{th}}$ percentile), developmental age equivalents (months/years), and confidence intervals (90% and 95%).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III was published in 2013 by Curriculum Associates, LLC, representing the third generational iteration of Albert Brigance’s initial infant and early childhood inventories.

Licensing and Purchase Requirements: The complete IED III system, its standardized derivative, technical manuals, testing manipulatives, and specialized child record booklets are proprietary, copyrighted educational and psychological instruments. They are commercially distributed by Curriculum Associates, LLC. Purchase and clinical administration require documented professional qualifications (typically categorized as Qualification User Level B), requiring graduate training in psychological assessment, special education, speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, or educational diagnostics.

Fees: Comprehensive physical assessment kits (including inventory binders, manuals, child record books, and manipulative cases) require institutional or private professional purchase, with pricing typically starting in the hundreds of dollars for complete standardized or criterion-referenced kits. Additional scoring forms and record books must be purchased periodically. Reproduction, unauthorized digitization, photocopying, or public posting of item protocols and assessment stimuli without written authorization from Curriculum Associates, LLC is strictly prohibited by international intellectual property law.

12. References

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
• Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Brigance, A. H. (2013). BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III (IED III). Curriculum Associates, LLC.
• Brigance, A. H. (2013). BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III Standardized (IED III Standardized). Curriculum Associates, LLC.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18(8), 519–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049294
• Iruka, I. U. (2014). Review of the BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III. In J. F. Carlson, K. F. Geisinger, & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The nineteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 98–101). Buros Center for Testing.
• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000
• Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Second edition (Vineland-II). Pearson.
• Van Haneghan, J. P. (2014). Review of the BRIGANCE® Inventory of Early Development III Standardized. In J. F. Carlson, K. F. Geisinger, & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The nineteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 101–105). Buros Center for Testing.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2011). Preschool Language Scales (5th ed.). Pearson.

13. Items of the Scale