ADAPTED PHYSICALACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 2000,17,78-94

O 2000 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

A New Test for Assessing Preschool

Motor Development: DIAL-3
Carol Mardell-Czudnowski
Northern Illinois University
Dorothea S. Goldenberg
University of Illinois, Chicago
Recent research and legislation in the United States regarding assessment of
preschool children have guided the development of the latest version of the
Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning, DIAL-3. This paper briefly describes the history of this test's previous two versions (DIAL,
1975 and DIAL-R, 1983, 1990) followed by a description of the research and
development of the motor items in DIAL-3. Then DIAL-3 is evaluated, using
the key features for selecting an appropriate preschool gross motor assessment instrument (Zittel, 1994). DIAL-3 meets all of the common criteria for a
technically adequate screening test.

Accurate motor assessment of young children with special needs is necessary for quality intervention.According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), this assessment should be completed by a multidisciplinary team
(Federal Register, 1997). Special educators, including adapted physical educators
and related service providers such as physical therapists, need to know about the
best instruments available for the screening and diagnosis of motoric problems in
young children.
Developmental screening should identify children who are at risk for developing various learning or behavior problems (Gredler, 1992; 1997). The term at
risk is widely used but ambiguous because risk is not static, standardized tests
generally are not effective predictors of risk, and children are not isolated entities
but develop within an ecological context (Gredler, 1992;Hrncir & Eisenhart, 1991;
Keogh & Speece, 1996).Additionally, Keogh and Speece (1996) found protective
factors, either within the child or the environment, that may compensate or outweigh the risks. Due to these problems, the concept of who is at risk varies. Another term often used as the end goal of screening is developmental delay. McLean,
Smith, McCormick, Schakel, and McEvoy (1991) define this term as a condition
Carol Mardell-Czudnowski is Professor Emeritus, Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, Northern Illinois University. Dorothea S.
Goldenberg is with the Department of Psychiatry, Institute for Juvenile Research at the
University of Illinois, Chicago.

Preschool Motor Development

79

which represents a significant delay in the process of development. The child is

not slightly or momentarily lagging in development. Rather, development is significantly affected and, without special intervention, it is likely that educational
performance at school age will be affected. DIAL-3 is designed to identify both of
these populations of young children, keeping in mind the importance of the succeeding steps to diagnostically verify thedegree of risk or delay and its impact on
future developmental growth as well as academic programming (MardellCzudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998).
Accurate motor assessment requires instruments that meet key criteria. The
purpose of this paper is to describe ;specific test and evaluate it according to the
six criteria identified by Zittel (1994). Although this test covers the five developmental areas (motor, cognition, language, psychosocial, and self-help skills) mandated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; Federal Register,
1997), this paper will be limited to the motor skills component.

Historical Development of DIAL and DIAL-R

A brief history of the first two versions, DIAL (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1975) and
DIAL-R (Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1983, 1990) will be given since
each new version was built upon the previous one(s). More than a quarter of a
century ago, in 1971, the Illinois legislature passed two bills that required the development of a screening procedure that would identify young children with either
current or potential learning problems (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972). To meet
this challenge, the Illinois State Board of Education funded, through federal assistance for the education of handicapped children (Title VI, ESEA), a project that
resulted in the development and standardizationof a screening test known as DIAL
(Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning).
The initial set of procedures and items (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972) was
developed by project staff and approved by a 20-member advisory board on the
basis of 10 criteria that were found in some tests, but no test at that time met all ten.
DIAL was designed to (a) be a screening test rather than a diagnostic test (relatively short, of a surface nature, and indicate the possibility of a variance in development); (b) cover the age range of 2.5 to 5.5 years; (c) be administered individually,
since this is the only way that gross motor skills, articulation, and receptive language can be assessed adequately, but in a group setting that simulates a typical
preschool or kindergarten classroom; (d) take about 30 min due to the frequent
difficulty of maintaining a young child's attention on activities that are not of his
or her choosing and the need to screen many children; (e) be multidimensional
(cover many areas of development); (f) be noncategorical and attempt to identify
at risk children regardless of the reason for the potential learning problem; (g) be
scored on the basis of observable performance rather than the subjective opinion
of the tester; (h) be process-oriented as well as product-oriented (i.e., evaluate how
a child does something in addition to the end result or score); (i) be applicable to
culturally different populations; and (j)be normed on a large stratified sample.
Thus, DIAL was normed on 4,356 children across the State of Illinois in the spring
of 1972, stratified by sex, race, size of the community, and socioeconomic level.
DIAL met all of the 10 criteria according to three independent external evaluators
(Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972). Materials were designed to meet the screening
criteria with some items presented one at a time on a format that resembles a

80

Mardell-Czudnowski and Goldenberg

telephone dial to reduce distraction. This format has remained as a unique feature
of all DIAL tests.
The theoretical basis for DIAL. and hence subseauent versions. was eclectic. Past and current theories and research findings were taken into consideration,
but the major thrust was examining what was being used in the early 70s to identify young children with special needs. There were many tests for young children
that preceded DIAL. Ninety-four instruments used for the identification of
prekindergarten high risk children were analyzed (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972,
1973) on the basis of age range (2-6 years); depth (screening or diagnostic); administrative factors (individual vs. group, test time, timed or untimed items, qualifications of person giving it); type of response (vocal or motoric); performance
factors (auditory discrimination, articulation, language, developmental, visual perception, motor, school readiness, social skills, self-concepts, conceptual skills);
and whether the tests were measurements requiring subjective judgment (rating
scale, interview, observation). From this analysis, six areas of behaviors were identified to be screened: sensory, motor, affective, social, conceptual, and language.
Normed data from the items within the tests were plotted to assist in determining
appropriate age ranges for each task.
The theoretical antecedents of motoric items for DIAL were based on the
early research by Gesell and Thompson (1938) and McGraw (1943), who had
established norms for motor skill development. Gesell (1952) postulated that all
mental life probably has a motor basis and a motor origin. Kephart (1960) labeled
the first interaction of a child and his environment as motor activity. Many researchers (Cratty, 1967; Dunsing & Kephart, 1965; Kephart, 1960) believed that
specific motor controls are a necessity for learning. By exploring and interacting
with the environment, a child receives stimulation and processes these responsive
patterns into learned actions. Thus, the importance of motor development became
an assessment priority in the development of DIAL. The delay of motor learning
and motor skills was viewed as a significant factor in the identification of children
with potential learning problems (Barsch & Rudell, 1962; Bryant, 1964; Karlin,
1957).
Motor development items on DIAL were formatted into two areas for ease
of assessment, gross motor and fine motor (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1975). Gross
motor behaviors were assessed more easily when the child was in an upright position, whereas fine motor behaviors were measured more easily while the child was
sitting at a table. In the gross motor area, tasks of throwing, catching, jumping,
hopping, skipping, standing still, and balancing were assessed. In the fine motor
area, tasks of visual matching, block building, cutting, copying of shapes and letters, finger touching, and hand clapping were assessed. Justification and developmental norms for all of these tasks were found in the literature (Mardell &
Goldenberg, 1972), but there were no established norms on previous tests for the
standing still item. In addition, all of the gross and fine motor tasks were statistically analyzed and found to be developmental (i.e., indicative of increased levels
of motor coordination as children grew older; Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972,1975).
Research conducted during the next 2 years confirmed the validity and reliability
of the items and procedures (Hall, Mardell, Wick, & Goldenberg, 1976). Additional validity and reliability studies are described elsewhere (Mardell-Czudnowslu,
1980; Wright & Masters, 1982).

Preschool Motor Development

81

DIAL was revised in 1983 as DIAL-R (Mardell-Czudnowski& Goldenberg,

1983). The revision maintained those features that were most valuable for screening young children while improving the predictability of the screening results. The
previous criteria were retained but others were added. Three changes in particular
affected every aspect of DIAL-R construction: (a) DIAL-R was standardized on a
national sample, whereas the DIAL standardization sample had been restricted to
the state of Illinois; (b) DIAL-R extended the age range to ages 2.0 to 6.0, whereas
the age range of DIAL was from 2.5 to 5.5; and (c) DIAL-R combined the gross
motor and fine motor items of DIAL into one area, motor. This change was made
for two reasons: (a) it reduced the weight of motoric items in the total score from
one half to one third, so it was comparable to the weight of either the concepts or
language items; and (b) it reduced the size of the screening team from four to three
operators, which was important from a practical point of view (Mardell-Czudnowski
& Goldenberg, 1983).
The seven items in gross motor and the eight items in fine motor were revised in the following manner. Throwing, standing still, balancing, and clapping
hands were deleted based on scoring problems and feedback from the field over
the decade of its use; catching, matching, and copying were revised to clarify scaring procedures;jumping, hopping, and skipping were combined into one item; and
building and cutting were revised only to accommodate for the extended age range.
Finally, one new item, writing name, was added as a school-related task identified
by nursery school, kindergarten, and f~st-gradeteachers. This item was administered only to children 4.0 and older.
The output of all eight motor items in DIAL-R is only motoric, while the
input for all motoric items is both visual and auditory. This was done to ensure the
children's understanding of how they were to respond independent of whether
they had the particular skill being assessed. Thus, even though they might not hear
or understand what was said (possibly due to a lack of comprehension in English),
they have an opportunity to see a demonstration of what is expected. For children
with a visual problem, other than total blindness, having the directions given
auditorially allows them to compensate to some degree.
DIAL-R was substantially modified in 1990 (Mardell-Czudnowski &
Goldenberg, 1990). In particular, the DIAL-R norms were reanalyzed, reliability
and validity data were expanded, a wider range of cut-off points was made available, and materials for training examiners were included in the test kit.

Development of DIALS
Since DIAL-R is widely used throughout the United States and in several other
countries (Australia, Taiwan, Canada, Hong Kong, Indonesia), the authors and
publisher decided to revise the DIAL-R test based on three considerations: (a)
norms must be kept current (less than 15 years old) to be valid (Salvia & Ysseldyke,
1998); (b) access to a free, appropriate, public education (FAPE) is now mandated
for eligible children of preschool age in all 50 states and several United States
territories (NEC*TAS, 1992), therefore children cannot be kept out of school because they did not pass a screening test; and (c) recent research suggests different
items may be more discriminatingin the early identification of at-risk children during
the preschool years. Again, the focus of this section will be on the motor items.

82

Mardell-Czudnowski and Goldenberg

Item Development
DIAL-3 continues to measure a subset of the most fundamental or basic skills that
are acquired by young children. The following is a list of general principles that
were adhered to in the development and selection of items: They should (a) be
developmentally appropriate, (b) be precursors of school success, (c) have enough
floor for the younger children, (d) be good discriminators, (e) be easy to administer, (0 be unambiguous to score, (g) cover the entire age range, and (h) be limited
to 10 min for the administration time of each area. Items were chosen that met the
majority of these principles and would be meaningful to children.
Children who may develop learning problems very often have difficulty with
their gross and fine motor movements. Johnson and Myklebust (1967) noted that
minor incoordination problems with tasks of buttoning and tying laces are observed in young children with learning disabilities. According to Smith (1991),
over 75 % of all poor readers have motor disturbances, but only 25 % of these
children have visual-motor disturbances. Therefore, motor weaknesses often are
not the result of underlying visual-perceptual deficits. A recent study by Fawcett
and Nicolson (1995) confirms that a number of children with dyslexia have persistent deficits in motor skills that continue into adolescence.
Descriptions of the 7 items in the motor area and the rationale for their inclusion in the DIAL-3 follow (Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998). The recommendations made by the National Association for the Education of Young
children (NAEYC) were followed for age-appropriateexpectations in specific tasks
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Thus, by using entry and exit points throughout the
assessment, tasks that would be too difficult for younger children and cause unnecessary frustration and tasks that would be too simple for older children and
cause unnecessary boredom are avoided.
Item I - Catching. Catching is assessed by the child having four opportunities to catch a beanbag from a distance of 6 feet. In DIAL-R, the child had three
opportunities, but a one-handed catch was added to ensure appropriate difficulty
for 6-year-olds. Campbell (1985) suggested that to catch, the child needs the ability to predict the trajectory of an object. Normed data for catching were originally
found (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972) on three early childhood instruments: Denver Developmental Screening Test (Frankenburg & Dodds, 1968); Preschool Attainment Record (Doll, 1966); and Quick Screening Scale of Mental Development
(Banham, 1963). Additional norms developed as landmarks for pediatricians
(American Academy of Pediatrics. n.d.) were also utilized.
Item 2 - Jump, Hop, and Skip. Jump, Hop, and Skip consists of three separate tasks. First, the child is required to jump up to touch a beanbag held slightly
above his or her head. Campbell (1985) noted that to jump, the child needs the
ability to produce the proper velocity of body movement. Normed data for jumping were originally found (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972) on five early childhood
instruments: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1968), Denver Developmental Screening Test (Frankenburg & Dodds, l968), Developmental Diagnosis (Gesell & Amatruda. 1947), Preschool Attainment Record (Doll, 1966), and
Quick Screening Scale of Mental Development (Banham, 1963).Additional norms
had been developed by Kephart (1960) and as landmarks by the American Academy of Pediatrics (n.d.).
The hopping task requires the child to hop six times on each leg. Normed
data for hopping were originally found (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972) on four

Preschool Motor Development

83

early childhood instruments: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1968),

Denver Developmental Screening Test (Frankenburg & Dodds, 1968), Developmental Diagnosis (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947), and Preschool Attainment Record
(Doll, 1966).Additional norms had been developed by Kephart (1960) and as landmarks by the American Academy of Pediatrics (n.d.). A study of normal and atrisk 3- and 5-year-olds by Huttenlocher, Levine, Huttenlocher, and Gates (1990)
found only three neurological test items that distinguished between the two groups.
One was hopping, which supports its importance as a DIAL3 task. Hopping carries 80% of the item score, although it is only one of the three tasks within this
item. At ages 5 to 7, this task requires the ability to hop first on one leg and then on
the other.
The third task, skipping, requires the child to skip one or two times after
watching the operator do so (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972). Normed data for skipping were originally found (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972) on three early childhood instruments: Developmental Diagnosis (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947),Preschool
Attainment Record (Doll, 1966), and Quick Screening Scale of Mental Development (Banharn, 1963). Additional norms had been developed by Kephart (1960).
Although it is a complicated gross motor activity that requires coordinated bilateral use of the body, Hynd and Willis (1988) state that skipping emerges in normally developing children around the age of 4 to 5 years. When this task is
administered to 3-year-olds, as well as to older children, points are given for precursor behaviors to skipping (e.g., stephop, gallop).
Item 3 - Building. DIAL-R required the child to model the building of a
three-block tower, a three-block bridge, and a six-block pyramid, in addition to
building a six-block stairs from memory. DIAL-3 has the same first three structures but substitutes a six-block child figure built from a model, thus gaining a
more difficult task for the older child while eliminating memory as a factor. Normed
data for building were originally found (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972) on 10 early
childhood instruments: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1968), Measurement of Intelligence of Infants and Young Children (Cattell, 1960), Denver
Developmental Screening Test (Frankenburg & Dodds, 1968), Developmental
Diagnosis (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947), Merrill Palmer Scales (Stutsman, 192648), Minnesota Preschool Scale (Goodenough, Maurer, & Van Wagenen, 1940),
Preschool Attainment Record (Doll, 1966), Quick Screening Scale of Mental Development (Banham, 1963), Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Terman & Merrill,
1960), and Tests of Mental Development (Kuhlman, 1939).Additional norms had
been developed as landmarks by the American Academy of Pediatrics (n.d.). The
natural progression in block assembly from a tower to a bridge to more complicated structures was elaborately documented by Case (1985), justifying the continued inclusion of building as a strong developmental item.
Item 4 - Thumbs and Fingers. Thumbs and Fingers has two tasks. First, the
child is shown how to twiddle thumbs and then asked to repeat the movement. The
second task is one of motor sequencing. It requires touching each of the four fingers to the thumb in sequence without skipping a finger or repetitively touching a
finger. This task is often given as part of a standard neurological examination.
Normed data for finger agility were originally found (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972)
on one early childhood instrument: Merrill Palmer Scale (Stutsman, 1926-48).
Welsh, Pennington, and Groisser (199 1) reported this task to be related neurologically to verbal fluency and to be developmentally sensitive, with differences between 12-year-olds and adults. A similar task was part of both the original DIAL

84

Mardell-Czudnowski and Goldenberg

and DIAL-R, but twiddling thumbs was added to the DIAL-3 item for the younger
child.
Item 5 - Cutting. As on the DIAL-R, children are asked to cut snips, a
straight line, and a curved line. The older child (age 5 and up) also is asked to cut
out a figure of a dinosaur, a task new to DIAL-3. Normed data for cutting were
originally found (Mardell & Goldenberg, 1972) on five early childhood instruments: DevelopmentalDiagnosis (Gesell & Arnatruda, 1947),Merrill Palmer Scale
(Stutsman, 1926-48), Preschool Attainment Record (Doll, 1966), Tests of Mental
Development (Kuhlman, 1939), and Vineland Social Maturity Scale (Doll, 1935).
Cutting skills hold up well as a developmental item, based on both DIAL-R and
DIAL-3 data. Additionally, cutting is highly regarded by early childhood personnel as a school-related task and is enjoyed by young children as an activity.
Item 6 - Copying. The child is requested to copy four geometric shapes
and four letters. The eight figures contain vertical and horizontal strokes (developmentally easiest), diagonal strokes, and curves that meet lines (most difficult).All
eight figures are presented on the Dial format. Normed data for copying were
originally found on all of the early childhood instruments previously listed (Mardell
& Goldenberg, 1972).Fletcher and Satz (1982) found the use of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI; Beery, 1982), on which children copy
24 geometric figures and three other brief tests correctly predicted 85 % of kindergarten children who were problem readers 7 years later. Fowler and Cross (1986)
reached a similar conclusion about the value of copying as a predictor.
In addition, Simner (1994) has done considerable research on young children's
ability to copy letters and shapes. He has concluded that an excessive number of
copying errors (addition, omission, andlor misalignment of parts leading to a marked
distortion in the overall shape or form) appearing in samples of printing obtained
from 4- to 6-year-old children can be an extremely important warning sign of later
school failure. A 3-year follow-up study of 171 children by Simner (1989) showed
that form errors in printing, even as early as the start of prekindergarten, could be
scored reliably, remained stable over time, and were tied to performance in first
grade. Simner (1994) also investigated which shapes are most predictive of school
success and the manner in which they should be scored. Three of the four DIAL-3
shapes are on his list. He then applied his findings to two different groups of children and established that copying shapes is closely linked to school success. Smith
(1991) states that, on the basis of her research, copying ability is one of the most
consistent correlates of early math and reading success.
Item 7 - Writing Name. This item is a unique task in DIAL tests. A survey
of DIAL-R users indicated that Writing Name was an item they believed should be
kept on the basis that, in their experience, it is a measure of school success. Furthermore, in her research of children's development of writing, Sulzby (1990) found
the writing of one's name to be one of the landmarks along the path from scribbling to conventional writing. In addition, DIAL-R and DIAL3 data analyses show
a developmental progression in this skill. It is administered only to children 4-0 or
older, the ages at which it is a developmentally appropriate item (Bredekamp &
Copple, 1997).

Content Analysis
The content analysis that had been performed for the DIAL and DIAL-R was reviewed and modified to reflect the abilities the items were intended to assess such

Preschool Motor Development

85

as visual motor integration, short term memory, previous learned association,

preacademic skills, and speech and language (Table 1). Administration and scoring of some items were simplified to increase interrater reliability and shorten
testing time.

Evaluation of DIALS According to

Pre-Established Key Features
Zittel (1994) listed six criteria that adapted physical educators should use in the
selection of a preschool assessment instrument. Each will be discussed as it relates
to DIAL-3.

Purpose
Selection features are "Resource materials state: what the instrument is designed
to provide; how the measurements can be used; the type of reference" (Zittel,
1994, p. 247).
What the Instrument is Designed to Provide. The DIAL-3 Manual states
that DIAL3 is an individually administered screening test designed to identify
young children in need of further diagnostic assessment. DIAL-3 is a 30-min
assessment of motoric, conceptual, and language behaviors. The DIAL-3 Parent
Questionnaire, completed during screening by a parent or caregiver, provides
normed scores for the child's self-help and social skills. The child's psychosocial
behaviors also are assessed by means of a rating scale completed by the testers in
the three performance areas (Motor, Concepts, and Language; Mardell-Czudnowski
& Goldenberg, 1998).
How the Measurements Can be Used. The results of DIAL-R screening
may be communicated to the parent(s) during a conference immediately after the
testing process or at a later time. These results will allow the coordinator to make
Table 1 DIAL3 Motor Area Illustrating the Abilities Assessed by the Items

DIAL-3
items
Motor area
Catching
Jump, hop, & skip
Building
Thumbs & fingers
Cutting
Copying
Writing name

VisualPrevious
motor
Short-term learning
integration memory association

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg (1998, p. 15).

Speech &
language

*
*

Preacademic
skills

*
*

86

Mardell-Czudnowskiand Goldenberg

one of the following statements about the child: (a) The child's development appears to be delayed when compared with those of the same age group, and further
assessment is recommended; or (b) The child appears to be developing in a satisfactory manner, and no serious difficulty is foreseen (Mardell-Czudnowski &
Goldenberg, 1998).
The Type of Reference. Although items were operationalized on the basis
of skills that kindergarten and first-grade teachers indicated were essential for success in school (criterion-referenced), DIAL, DIAL-R, and DIAL-3 have always
been standardized tests (norm-referenced).This means that each child is evaluated
in terms of other children's performances. For this comparison to be meaningful,
the norms must be adequate, which is dependent on three factors: the representativeness of the norm sample (age, gender, ethnicity, etc.), the size of the norm
sample, and the relevance of the norms in terms of the purpose of testing (Salvia &
Ysseldyke, 1998). In the case of DIAL-3, the purpose is screening. All of this
information is available in depth in the DIAL-3 manual (Mardell-Czudnowski &
Goldenberg, 1998) but is described briefly in the following sections.

Technical Adequacy
"Evidence for validity; evidence for reliability; standardized population" (Zittel,
1994, p. 247).
Evidence for Validity. According to the DIAL-3 Manual, "The validity of
a test is defined as the degree to which it accomplishes what it is designed to do"
(Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998, p. 82). Anastasi and Urbina (1997)
observe that construct validity has come to be recognized as the fundamental and
all-inclusive validity concept. DIAL-3 is based on the accurate measurement of
motor, concepts, language, self-help, and psychosocial skill development in young
children. Each DIAL-3 task had to demonstrate a consistent developmental growth
pattern across the age groupings of the DIAL-3 in order to be included in the final
20 items. Age differentiation is a major criterion used to validate developmental
tests, even though the existence of progressive increases in test scores with increased age does not guarantee that the test is measuring development.
Content and criterion-related validity provide valuable information in their
own right on the definition and understanding of the constructs measured by a test.
A number of concurrent and discriminant validity studies were conducted with
other screening and diagnostic tests. The results comparing DIAL-3 with two tests
(one screening and one diagnostic test) that have motor components are reported
here.
A total of 166 children from the DIAL-3 standardization sample were also
given the DIAL-R. The children were divided into two groups on the basis of age.
One group consisted of 88 children aged 3.5 to 4.5 (mean age 48.4 months, SD
3.2) and an older group of 78 children aged 4.6 to 5.4 (mean age 58.4 months, SD
3.2). Test administration was counterbalanced: Some children took the DIAL-R
before taking the DIAL-3, and others took the DIAL-3 first. The interval between
tests ranged from 13 to 77 days, with a mean interval of 38 days. Results are
presented in Table 2. Because of some sampling fluctuation in the standard deviations of the DIAL-3 scores (this affects the values of correlation coefficients), all
obtained correlations were corrected assuming a population standard deviation of
15 standard score points (Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998).

Preschool Motor Development

87

Table 2 Correlations of Motor and Total Scores on the DIAL-3 With DIAL-R
and DAS
DIAL3 Motor
r
Con."
Age
3.5 to 4.5
DIAL-R
Motor
Total
DIAL3
Mean
SD
4.6 to 5.4
DIAL-R
Motor
Total
DIAL-3
Mean
SD
DAS subtests
Copying
Nonverbal cluster
GCA
DIAL-3
Mean
SD

DIAL3 Total
r
Corr."
DIAL-R
SD
Mean

DAS
Mean
46.4
97.3
98.3

SD
9.8
15.2
13.8

=Allcoefficients were corrected for the variability of the norm group (SD = IS), based on
the standard deviation obtained on DIAL-3, using Guilford's (1954, p. 392) formula.
From Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg (1998, pp. 84, 88).

The DIAL-3 Total score has a moderately high corrected correlation with the DIALR Total score (0.91 for the younger sample and 0.84 for the older sample). In
addition, the DIAL-3 Motor scores correlate moderately well with the DIAL-R
Motor scores for both age groups (0.72 for the younger sample and 0.74 for the
older sample). These results provide good support for the convergent and discriminant validity of the DIAL-3 scores.
Fifty children from the DIAL-3 standardization sample also were given the
Differential Ability Scales (DAS; Elliott, 1990), which is a diagnostic test. They
covered an age range of 3.7 through 5.10 (mean age 4.7). They were given the
DAS and the DIAL-3 in counterbalanced order, with the interval between tests
varying from 1 to 72 days (mean interval 11 days). Table 2 shows the correlations
between the DIAL-3 motor and total scores and the DAS motor measures and
DAS General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score, which is the overall composite.

88

Mardell-Czudnowski and Goldenberg

The DIAL-3 Total correlates substantially (0.79) with the DAS overall composite
score (GCA). The DIAL-3 Motor score has a corrected correlation of 0.51 with
DAS Copying (a task included in the DIAL3 Motor area). Motor also correlates
substantially (0.62) with DAS Matching Letter-Like Forms, which is a nonverbal
subtest, and with the Nonverbal Cluster score (0.51). These results show strong
relationships between DIAL-3 and the DAS and support the validity of the DIAL-3.
Although it is not one of the categories of technical validity, Anastasi (1988)
states that face validity is considered essential to obtain cooperation from participants and to instill acceptance in the minds of test users. Face validity is a first
impression of whether a test appears to be measuring the intended content in an
appropriate manner. For instance, a screening test for young children should be
gamelike and appealing. Young children have no concept of the meaning of "taking a test," so their typical performance has to be elicited in other ways. DIAL-3
includes a variety of appealing tasks, novel materials, colorful pictures, age-appropriate manipulatives, and carefully controlled entry and exit requirements, which
all contribute to maximizing the child's cooperation and interest. Increased interest and cooperation, in turn, contribute to the validity of the obtained scores
(Mardell- Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998).
Evidence for Reliability. The concept of reliability concerns the accuracy
or consistency of scores. Two types of reliability are internal consistency based on
inconsistencies in a person's responses to individual items in the test and testretest reliability based on the inconsistencies due to fluctuations in performance
over time. The median alpha (internal) reliability of the DIAL-3 Total score is
0.87, based on the standardization sample of 1,560 children. Motor area alpha
reliabilities range from 0.45 to 0.74. The median of 0.66 is brought down by the
older children (ages 6-6 to 6-11) because a number of children of this age obtain
near-maximum scores. As expected, area scores demonstrate somewhat lower internal reliability, primarily because area scores are based on fewer items than is the
DIAL-3 Total score. The DIAL-3 Total scores have adequate reliability at every 6month age span (but the above mentioned one) for screening purposes, according
to Salvia and Ysseldyke's (1998) standard of 0.80 for a screening test.
To measure test-retest reliability, DIAL-3 was administered twice to 158
children (86 boys and 72 girls) from the standardization sample, who were divided
into two groups on the basis of age. One group consisted of 80 children aged 3.6 to
4.5 (M = 47.4 months, SD = 3.5) and an older group of 78 children aged 4.6 to 5.10
(M = 60.4 months, SD = 3.6). The interval between tests ranged from 12 to 65 days
(M = 28 days). The DIAL-3 Total scores (0.88 and 0.84 for the two groups) have
very satisfactory test-retest reliabilities that are above the Salvia and Ysseldyke
(1998) criterion of 0.80 for a screening test. The DIAL-3 Motor area reliabilities
(0.69 and 0.67) cluster around 0.70, indicating that the Motor area should not be
used as a separate test but only as part of the total screening (Mardell- Czudnowski
& Goldenberg, 1998).
Standardized Population. DIAL-3 was normed on a national sample of
1,560 English-speaking and 650 Spanish- speaking children, stratified by chronological age, gender, geographic area, race or ethnic group, and parent education
level. As the sampling plan was completed, its correspondence to the population
target figures was tracked at the level of joint frequencies of the stratification variables. Therefore, the sample was matched to the population not only for one demographic variable at a time but also for combined variables (Mardell-Czudnowski
& Goldenberg, 1998).

Preschool Motor Development

89

Nondiscriminatory
"Adaptations permitted, multisource information permitted, standardized sample
sensitive to culture and disability" (Zittel, 1994, p. 247).
Adaptations Permitted. Any adaptations are permitted as long as they do
not interfere with the standardized manner in which the test is to be administered.
For example, children would have to be ambulatory to participate in the two gross
motor items, but if not, they could still participate in the five fine motor items.
Multisource Znfomzation Permitted. DIAL-3 is designed not only to permit multisource information but to require it. Each area is administered by a different adult so that the child is screened by a minimum of three adults. Along with the
abilities and behaviors that are evaluated by the screening team, the DIAL-3 includes the parent questionnaire, which concentrates on the child's self-help and
social development. It provides normed scores for the child's self-help and social
skills which, combined with the behavioral ratings from the DIAL-3 operators,
provide the basis for the need of further assessment in the psychosocial area. The
parent questionnaire also requests other information that should be shared between
parents and professionals, such as medical history, family background, and general development. Information received from parents, who see the child in his or
her natural environment, adds to the social and ecological validity of the screening
in ways that standardized assessments cannot match (Mardell-Czudnowski &
Goldenberg, 1998).
Standardized Sample Sensitive to Culture and Disability. Both the DIAL3 and the Speed DIAL, a shortened version administered by one person rather than
a team, may be administered in English or Spanish. The Spanish version is not
merely a translation of DIAL-3 but a test that has been normed on a national sample
of young Spanish-speaking children. Great care was taken to make sure DIAL3
measures accurately in English or Spanish. The goal was to keep the two versions
as similar as possible.
Children with special educational needs comprised approximately 10% of
the total sample. A total of 161 children in the standardization sample were reported as receiving special education services. These 161 children received 292
services. They were categorizedinto the following groupings: physical, cognitive,
communication, social or emotional, and adaptive.

Administrative Ease
"Scoring more than passlfail; interpretation includes a raw score summary, comments related to performance, or level of mastery indicated; administration time
clearly stated or flexibility in test component administration allowed" (Zittel, 1994,
p. 247).
Scoring More Than Pass/Fail. Every item is scored by objective criteria
on the record form. The raw score is easily converted to a 5-point scaled score.
Then the scaled scores are added within each area and the three areas are combined for a DIAL-R total score. A computer software program is available to assist
in making this process very accurate and fast. It also contains a summary for parents and parent-child activities (both in English or Spanish) that are gamelike yet
educationally sound.
Interpretation includes a raw score summary, comments related to peiformance, or level of mastery indicated. The record form allows examiners to know

90

Mardell-Czudnowskiand Goldenberg

exactly what the child could do by looking at one page for each area that contains
all of the tasks. The scaled score indicates a rough measure of mastery according
to age. The final decision is based on a number of factors selected by each screening site (e.g., the percentage of children the site wants to identify).
Administration Time Clearly Stated or Flexibility in Test Component Administration Allowed. With one exception in the Concepts area, DIAL-3 items
and tasks are not timed; children are allowed to take as much time as they need to
respond. However, it is the responsibility of the operator to present the materials in
such a way that children know what is expected and want to respond. This is accomplished through a training workshop that introduces operators to the DIAL-3
screening procedures. The DIAL-3 kit contains a reusable training packet that contains written tests, answers for the written tests, performance tests, and scripts for
roleplaying. The DIAL-3 training videotape demonstrates the administration of all
items in each area besides showing the overall screening situation (MardellCzudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998).

Instructional Link
"Curriculum-referenced,test items sequenced to provide low inference for instructional objectives, ability to monitor progress" (Zittel, 1994, p. 247).
Curriculum-Referenced. Guidelines have been developed by a national task
force on screening and assessment for the National Center for Clinical Infant Programs. One of the ten guidelines states "Processes, procedures, and instruments
intended for screening should only be used for their specified purposes7'(1989, p.
24). The specific purpose of DIAL3 is to identify children with current or potential learning problems. Thus, we do not believe that a screening test should have an
instructional link nor be used to determine cumculum. However, it is easy to see,
using the record form, exactly which skills are age appropriate and which ones
require instructional links. Additionally, parent and child activity forms that are
identical in content to the ones in the computer program suggest general activities
that parents may use to enhance their child's overall development in each of the
five areas. Hence, there are suggestions for motor activities. The activities presented require minimal commercial materials and can be accomplished in a short
period of time (Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1998).
Test Items Are Sequenced to Provide Low Inference for Instructional
Objectives. Since DIAL-3 was normed on 1,560English-speakingand 605 Spanish-speaking children stratified by age, tasks within each test item have been sequenced according to difficulty level to allow for appropriate age level entrance
and exit points. This also assists in the development of instructional objectives
based on substantive data of what children are typically capable of doing at given
ages.
Ability to monitorprogress. As a screening test, DIAL3 was not designed
to monitor progress. However, retesting over a 6-month or 12-month period does
show the child's progress (Mardell-Czudnowski, Goldenberg, Suen, &Fries, 1988).

Ecological Validity
"Familiar materials, familiar setting, caregiver present" (Zittel, 1994, p.247).
Familiar Materials. While DIAL-3 does employ familiar materials (e.g.,
red and white blocks, scissors, primary pencil) in the motor area, it also uses novel

Preschool Motor Development

91

materials (e.g., red apple beanbag, cutting cards, Copying Dial) to interest the
child in a new activity.
Familiar Setting. DIAL-3 screening is often conducted in the child's school
or childcare center. However, allowance is made for the occasion when the child is
screened in an unfamiliar setting. All children are allowed to sit (and play) at a
play table for as long as necessary before going to any of the three areas to be
screened. This is another unique feature of DIAL tests.
Caregiver Present. All screening is done in the presence of the caregiver.
A part of the screening room is set aside for caregivers and younger siblings. If
necessary, the caregiver may even accompany the child to the screening area.

Summary
Developing a nationally standardized screening test is both time consuming and
costly. This article briefly describes the previous versions of DIAL and DIAL-R
and the development of new and revised items in the motor area for DIAL-3. The
same procedures were followed for the development of items in the other four
sections of the test: concepts, language, self-help, and psychosocial. Then DIAL3 is evaluated using the key features for selecting an appropriate preschool gross
motor assessment instrument (Zittel, 1994).
The quest for the most predictive preschool screening test will continue until
educators and caregivers, working together, can accurately identify all children
whose developmental delay or differences suggest the need of special educational
services and then provide such services within and outside of the early childhood
setting. It is important that adapted physical educators, as members of the screening team, be aware of the latest screening tests and how they meet the criteria
established for evaluating all of the components of the test.

References
American Academy of Pediatrics (n.d.). Developmental landmarks.Washington, DC: American Academy of Pediatrics.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Anastasi, A,, & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Banham, K. (1963).Quick screening sc& u~mentaldevelopment. Murfreesboro, TN: Psychometric Affiliates.
Barsch, R., & Rudell, R. (1962). A study of reading development among 77 children with
cerebral palsy. Cerebral Palsy Review, 23,3-13.
Bayley, N. (1968).Bayley scales of infant development. New York: PsychologicalCorporation.
Beery, K. (1982).Revised administration, scoring, and teaching manual for the Developmental Test of Wsual-MotorIntegration. Cleveland, OH: Modem Curriculum Press.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple (Eds.) (1997). Developmentally appropriate practices in early
childhoodprograms serving childrenfrom birth to age 8. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bryant, N. (1964).Some conclusionsconcerning impaired motor development among reading
disability cases. Bulletin of Orton Society, 14, 16-17.

92

Mardell-Czudnowski and Goldenberg

Campbell, S. (1985). Assessment of the child with CNS dysfunction. In J. Rothstein, (Ed.),
Measurement in physical therapy (pp. 207-228). New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adult. London: Academic Press.
Cattell, P. (1960). Measurement of intelligence of infants and young children. New York:
Johnson Reprint Corp.
Cratty, B. (1967). Movement behavior and motor learning (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lea &
Febiger.
Current population survey (March, 1994) [Machine-readable data file]. Washington, DC:
Bureau of the Census (Producer and Distributor).
Doll, E. (1935). Vineland social maturity scale. Circle Pines, M N : American Guidance
Service.
Doll, E. (1966). Preschool attainment record. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dunsing, J., & Kephart, N. (1965). Motor generalization in space and time. Learning disorders (Vol. 1). Seattle, WA: Special Publications.
Elliott, C.D. (1990). DAS administration and scoring manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Fawcett, A., & Nicolson, R. (1995). Persistent deficits in motor skill of children with dyslexia. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27,235-240.
Federal Register. (1997). PL 105-17. Individuals with disabilities education act.
Fletcher, J., & Satz, P. (1982). Kindergarten prediction of reading achievement: A seven
year longitudinal follow-up. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42,681685.
Fowler, M., & Cross, A. (1986). Preschool risk factors as predictors of early school performance. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7(4), 237-241.
Frankenburg, W., & Dodds, J. (1968).Denver developmental screening test. Denver: Ladoca
Publishing Foundation.
Gesell,A. (1952). Infant development: The embryology of early human behavior. New York:
Harper.
Gesell, A., & Amatruda, E. (1947). Developmental diagnosis (2nd ed.). New York: HoeberHarper.
Gesell, A., & Thompson, H. (1938). The psychology of early growth including norms of
infant behavior and a method of genetic analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Goodenough,F., Maurer, K., &Van Wagenen, M. (1940). Minnesota Preschool Scale. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Gredler, G. (1992). School readiness: Assessment and educational issues. Brandon, VT:
Clinical Psychology Publishing.
Gredler, G. (1997). Issues in early childhood screening and assessment. Psychology in the
Schools, 34(2), 99-105.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hall, J., Mardell, C., Wick, J., & Goldenberg, D. (1976). Further development and refinement of DIAL, final report. Resources in Education (ED 117 200).
Hrncir, E., & Eisenhart, C. (1991). Use with caution: The "at-risk" label. Young Children,
46, 23-27.
Huttenlocher, P., Levine, S., Huttenlocher, J., & Gates, J. (1990). Discrimination of normal
and at-risk preschool children on the basis of neurological tests. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 32,394-402.
Hynd, G., & Willis, W.G. (1988). Pediatric neuropsychology. Orlando: Grune & Stratton.
Johnson, D., & Myklebust, H. (1967). Learning disabilities, education principles andpractices. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Preschool Motor Development

93

Karlin, R. (1957). Physical growth and success in undertaking beginning reading. Journal
of Educational Research, 51, 191-201.
Keogh, B., & Speece, D. (1996). Learning disabilities within the context of school. In D.
Speece & B. Keough (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kephart, N. (1960). The slow learner in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Kuhlman, F. (1939). Tests of mental development. Minneapolis: Educational Test Bureau.
Mardell, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1972). Learning disabilities/earlychildhood researchproject.
Springfield, E: Ofice of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Illinois.
Mardell, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1973). Instruments for screening of prekindergarten children. Research in education, (ERIC No. ED 082 408).
Mardell, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1975). Developmental indicators for the assessment of
learning (DIAL). Edison, NJ: Childcraft Educational Corporation.
Mardell-Czudnowski, C. (1980). Validity and reliability studies with DIAL. Journal for
Special Educators, 17(1), 32-45.
Mardell-Czudnowski, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1983). Developmental indicatorsfor the assessment of leaming-revised (DIAL-R). Edison, NJ: Childcraft Educational Corporation.
Mardell- Czudnowski, C., Goldenberg, D., Suen, H., &Fries, R. (1988). Predictive validity
of DIAL-R. Diagnostique, 14(1), 55-62.
Mardell-Czudnowski, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1990). Developmental indicators for the assessment of learning-revised, American Guidance Service edition. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Mardell-Czudnowski, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1998). Developmental indicators for the assessment of learning-third edition (DIAL-3). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
McGraw, M. (1943). The neuromuscular maturation of the human irzfant. New York: Columbia University Press.
McLean, M., Smith, B., McConnick, K., Shakel, J., & McEvoy, M. (1991). Developmental
delay: Establishing parameters for a preschool category of exceptionality. Position
paper for Division for Early Childhood, Council for Exceptional Children.
National Center for Clinical Programs (1989). Screening and assessment: Guidelines for
identiJfving young disabled and developmentally vulnerable children and theirfamilies. Washington, DC: Author.
NEC*TAS (1992). Section 619 profile: A profile of Part B section 619 services. Chapel
Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1998). Assessment (8th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Simner, M. (1989). Predictive validity of an abbreviated version of the Printing Performance School Readiness Test. Joumal of School Psychology, 27,2, 189-195.
Simner, M. (1994). Improving the predictive validity of geometric-design copying tasks on
instruments used to evaluate school readiness. In C. Faure, ,P. Keuss, G. Lorsette, &
A.Vinter, (Eds.) Advances in handwriting and drawing: A multidisciplinary approach
(pp. 489-500). Paris: Europia.
Smith, C. (1991). Learning disabilities: The integration of learnel; task and setting. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stutsman, R. (1926-48). Merrill Palmer scale of mental tests. Wood Dale, L: Stoelting.
Sulzby, E. (1990). Assessment of emergent writing and children's language while writing.
In L. Morrow & J. Smith (Eds.), Assessment for Instruction in Early Literacy (pp.
83-109). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

94

Mardell-Czudnowski and Goldenberg

Terman, L., & Menill, M. (1960). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Welsh, M., Pennington, B., & Groisser, D. (1991). Anonnative study of executive function:
A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7,
131-149.
Wright, B. & Masters, G. (1982). Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago:
Mesa Press.
Zittel, L. (1994). Gross motor assessment of preschool children with special needs: Instrument considerations.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11,245-260.

Authors' Notes
The authors wish to thank the entire staff at American Guidance Service
(AGS), the publishers of DIAL-R and DIAL-3, who were instrumental in the
item development of DIAL-3. In particular, we are most grateful to Colin Elliott,
Shelly Saunders, Lora Oberle, J.J. Wang and Tsuey- Hwa Chen at AGS. More
information about ordering DIAL-3 may be obtained from AGS. Tel: (800) 3282560; Fax: (612) 786-9077; E-mail: <agsmail@agsnet.com>.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carol
Mardell-Czudnowski, 1605-B Pacific Rim Court, PMB 7 1-429143905, San
Diego, CA 92143-9015 <carolnmoshe@laguna.com.mx>; Dorothea Goldenberg,
Dial Inc., PO Box 911, Highland Park, IL 60035.