When would you rely on informal assessment methods (i.e., observation, curriculum-based measures) versus formal standardized tests in a school evaluation?

• A. Informal measures capture day-to-day performance and monitor progress; formal tests provide diagnostic clarity and eligibility decisions; use a balanced battery.
• B. Formal tests should always replace informal measures.
• C. Informal measures are never useful.
• D. Use only standardized tests and no informal data.

Answer: (A)

Informal assessment methods are used to see how a student performs in everyday classroom tasks and to track growth over time in real moments of learning. They reflect authentic functioning—the kind of performance teachers observe during regular instruction, with frequent data points from observation, curriculum-based measures, and progress monitoring. Because they can be administered repeatedly and quickly, they’re ideal for guiding instruction, adjusting supports, and determining whether a student is making progress.

Formal standardized tests, by contrast, provide consistent, norm-referenced benchmarks that allow you to compare a student to peers and to determine diagnostic clarity and eligibility for services. They’re useful for making decisions that require standardized interpretation, such as eligibility determinations or confirming suspected deficits that aren’t clear from day-to-day performance alone. However, they don’t always capture how a student functions in typical classroom contexts and can be influenced by test format, motivation, or test-taking skills.

Therefore, the best approach is to use a balanced battery: rely on informal measures for ongoing progress monitoring and instructional planning, and use formal standardized tests to obtain diagnostic clarity and eligibility information. This combination gives a complete picture of both day-to-day functioning and standardized performance.

The other approaches fall short because they ignore the value of one data source over the other. Relying only on formal tests misses the instructional relevance of day-to-day performance; relying only on informal measures lacks standardized benchmarks and clear eligibility guidance; and statements that formal tests should always replace informal measures, or that informal measures are never useful, ignore the benefits of integrating multiple data sources for a well-rounded evaluation.