• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
John Willis on "Statistics and Test Scores"
 

John Willis on "Statistics and Test Scores"

on

  • 876 views

This is an introductory presentation by John Willis re test scores and statistics. I am presenting it "as is" for use by others.

This is an introductory presentation by John Willis re test scores and statistics. I am presenting it "as is" for use by others.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
876
Views on SlideShare
876
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    John Willis on "Statistics and Test Scores" John Willis on "Statistics and Test Scores" Presentation Transcript

    • Rivier University Education Division Specialist in Assessment of Intellectual Functioning (SAIF) Program ED 656, 657, 658, & 659 John O. Willis, Ed.D., SAIF 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 1
    • Statistics: Test Scores 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 2
    • One measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions. — Donald Sutherland 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 3
    • We can measure the same thing with many different units. 4
    • We measure the same distances with many different units. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 5
    • Disability Rights Center Low Avenue NH State House Phenix Avenue Main Street 0.1 miles 528 feet 176 yards 6,336 inches 161 meters 8 chains 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. 32 rods 6
    • We measure the same temperatures with many different units. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 7
    • ºC ºF 100 212 37 373.15 98.6 -17.8 Statistics 310.15 32 0 SAIF K 273.15 0 255.35 John O. Willis 8
    • Test authors and publishers feel compelled to do the same thing with test scores. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 9
    • Z scores -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Standard 40 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 160 1 3 7 10 13 16 19 1 6 8 12 15 18 21 26 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 NCE 1 1 8 29 50 71 92 99 99 Percentile 0.1 0.1 2 16 50 84 98 99.9 99.9 Scaled V- Scale T
    • SCORES USED WITH THE TESTS When a new test is developed, it is normed on a sample of hundreds or thousands of people. The sample should be like that for a good opinion poll: female and male, urban and rural, different parts of the country, different income levels, etc. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 11
    • The scores from that norming sample are used as a yardstick for measuring the performance of people who then take the test. This human yardstick allows for the difficulty levels of different tests. The student is being compared to other students on both difficult and easy tasks. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 12
    • You can see from the illustration below that there are more scores in the middle than at the very high and low ends. Many different scoring systems are used, just as you can measure the same distance as 1 yard, 3 feet, 36 inches, 91.4 centimeters, 0.91 meter, or 1/1760 mile. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 13
    • 1 There are 200 &s. Each && = 1%. & & & & &&&&&& &&&&&& & && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & &&&&&& &&&&&& & & & Percent in each 2.2% 6.7% 16.1% 50% 16.1% 6.7% 2.2% Standard Scores – 69 70 – 79 80 – 89 90 – 110 111 – 120 121 – 130 & 131 – Scaled Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 T Scores – 29 30 – 36 37 – 42 43 – 56 57 – 63 64 – 70 71 – Percentile Ranks – 02 Very Low 03 – 08 09 – 24 Low Average 25 – 75 Average (90 – 110) 77 – 91 91 – 98 Superior (121 – 130) 98 – WoodcockJohnson Classif. Stanines Very Low - 73 Low Low 74 - 81 Below Average 82 - 88 Low Average 89 - 96 Average 97 - 103 High Average (111 – 120) High Average Above Average 104 - 111 112 - 118 High 119 - 126 Very Superior (131 – ) Very High 127 - Adapted from Willis, J. O. & Dumont, R. P., Guide to identification of learning disabilities (1998 New York State ed.) (Acton, MA: Copley Custom Publishing, 1998, p. 27). Also available at http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/test_score_descriptions.htm. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 14
    • PERCENTILE RANKS (PR) simply state the percent of persons in the norming sample who scored the same as or lower than the student. A percentile rank of 63 would be high average – as high as or higher than 63% and lower than the other 37% of the norming sample. It would be in Stanine 6. The middle 50% of examinees' scores fall between percentile ranks of 25 and 75. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 16
    • A percentile rank of 63 would mean that you scored as high as or higher than 63 percent of the people in the test’s norming sample  and lower than the other 37 percent . Never use the abbreviations “%ile” or “%.” Those abbreviations guarantee your reader will think you mean “percent correct,” which is an entirely different matter. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 17
    • Percentile ranks (PR) are not equal units. They are all scrunched up in the middle and spread out at the two ends. Therefore, percentile ranks cannot be added, subtracted, multiplied, divided, or – therefore – averaged (except for finding the median if you are into that sort of thing). 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 18
    • NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENTS (NCE) were – like so many clear, simple, understandable things – invented by the government. NCEs are equal-interval standard scores cleverly designed to look like percentile ranks. With a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 21.06, they line up with percentile ranks at 1, 50, and 99, but nowhere else, because percentile ranks are not equal intervals. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 19
    • Percentile Ranks and Normal Curve Equivalents PR 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 NCE 1 23 33 39 45 50 55 61 67 77 99 PR 1 3 8 17 32 50 68 83 92 97 99 NCE 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 20
    • 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 rubber band PR NCE stick 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 21
    • A Normal Curve Equivalent of 57 would be in the 63rd percentile rank (Stanine 6). The middle 50% of examinees' Normal Curve Equivalent scores fall between 36 and 64. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 22
    • Because they are equal units, Normal Curve Equivalents can be added and subtracted, and most statisticians would probably let you multiply, divide, and average them. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 23
    • Z SCORES are the fundamental standard score. One z score equals one standard deviation. Although only a few tests (favored mostly by occupational therapists) use them, z scores are the basis for all other standard scores. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 24
    • Z SCORES have an average (mean) of 0.00 and a standard deviation of 1.00. A z score of 0.33 would be in the 63rd percentile rank, and it would be in Stanine 6. The middle 50% of examinees' z scores fall between -0.67 and +0.67. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 25
    • STANDARD SCORES ("quotients" on some tests) have an average (mean) of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. A standard score of 105 would be in the 63rd percentile rank and in Stanine 6. The middle 50% of examinees' standard scores fall between 90 and 110. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 26
    • [Technically, any score defined by its mean and standard deviation is a “standard score,” but we usually (except, until recently, with tests published by Pro-Ed) use “standard score” for standard scores with mean = 100 and s.d. = 15.] 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 27
    • SCALED SCORES ("standard scores“ [which they are] on some Pro-Ed tests) are standard scores with an average (mean) of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. A scaled score of 11 would be in the 63rd percentile rank and in Stanine 6. The middle 50% of students' standard scores fall between 8 and 12. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 28
    • V-SCALE SCORES have a mean of 15 and standard deviation of 3 (like Scaled Scores). A v-scale score of 15 would be in the 63rd percentile rank and in Stanine 6. The middle 50% of examnees' v-scale scores fall between 13 and 17. V-Scale Scores simply extend the ScaledScore range downward for the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 29
    • T SCORES have an average (mean) of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A T score of 53 would be in the 62nd percentile rank, Stanine 6. The middle 50% of examinees' T scores fall between approximately 43 and 57. [Remember: T scores, Scaled Scores, NCEs, and z scores are actually all standard scores.] 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 30
    • CEEB SCORES for the SATs, GREs, and other Educational Testing Service tests used to have an average (mean) of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. A CEEB score of 533 would have been in the 63rd percentile rank, Stanine 6. The middle 50% of examinees' CEEB scores used to fall between approximately 433 and 567. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 31
    • BRUININKS-OSERETSKY SCALE SCORES have an average (mean) of 15 and a standard deviation of 5. A Bruininks-Oseretsky scale score of 17 would be in the 66th percentile rank, Stanine 6. The middle 50% of examinees' scores fall between approximately 12 and 18. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 32
    • QUARTILES ordinarily divide scores into the lowest, antepenultimate, penultimate, and ultimate quarters (25%) of scores. However, they are sometimes modified in odd ways. DECILES divide scores into ten groups, each containing 10% of the scores. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 33
    • STANINES (standard nines) are a nine-point scoring system. Stanines 4, 5, and 6 are approximately the middle half (54%)* of scores, or average range. Stanines 1, 2, and 3 are approximately the lowest one fourth (23%). Stanines 7, 8, and 9 are approximately the highest one fourth (23%). _________________________ * But who’s counting? 34
    • Why do authors and publishers create and select all these different scores? 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 35
    • • Immortality. We still talk about “Wechsler-type standard scores” with a mean of 100 and standard deviation (s.d.) of 15. [Of course, Dr. Wechsler’s name has also gained some prominence from all the tests he published before and after his death in 1981.] 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 36
    • • Retaliation? I have always fantasized that the 1960 conversion of Stanford-Binet IQ scores to a mean of 100 and s.d. of 16 resulted from Wechsler’s grabbing market share from the 1937 Stanford-Binet with his 1939 Wechsler-Bellevue and 1949 WISC and other tests. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 37
    • My personal hypothesis was that when Wechsler’s deviation IQ (M = 100, s.d. = 15) proved to be such a popular improvement over the Binet ratio IQ (Mental Age/ Chronological Age x 100) (MA/CA x 100) there was no way the next Binet edition was going to use that score. [This idea is probably nonsense, but I like it.] 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 38
    • [Wechsler went with a deviation IQ based on the mean and s.d. because the old ratio IQ (MA/CA x 100) did not mean the same thing at different ages. For instance, an IQ of 110 might be at the 90th percentile at age 12, the 80th at age 10, and the 95th at age 14. The deviation IQ is the same at all ages.] 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 39
    • [The raw data from the Binet ratio IQ scores did show a mean of about 100 (mental age = chronological age) and a standard deviation, varying considerably from age to age, of something like 16 points, so both the Binet and the Wechsler choices were reasonable. However, picking just one would have made life a lot easier for evaluators from 1960 to 2003.] 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 40
    • In any case, the subtle difference between s.d. 15 and 16 plagued evaluators with the 1960/1972 and 1986 editions of the Binet. The 2003 edition finally switched to s.d. 15. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 41
    • • Matching the precision of the score to the precision of the measurement. Total or composite scores based on several subtests are usually sufficiently reliable and based on sufficient items to permit a fine-grained 15-point subdivision of each standard deviation (standard score). 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 42
    • It can be argued that a subtest with less reliability and fewer items should not be sliced so thin. There might be fewer than 15 items! A scaled score dividing each standard deviation into only 3 points would seem more appropriate, but there are big jumps between scores on such scales. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 43
    • The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale v-scale extends the scaled score measurement downward another 5 points to differentiate among persons with very low ratings because the Vineland is often used with persons who obtain extremely low ratings. The v-scale helpfully subdivides the lowest 0.1% of ratings. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 44
    • T scores, dividing each standard deviation into 10 slices, are finer grained than scaled scores (3 slices), but not quite as narrow as standard scores (15). The Differential Ability Scales, Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, and many personality and neuropsychological tests and inventories use T scores. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 45
    • Dr. Bill Lothrop often quotes Prof. Charles P. "Phil" Fogg: Gathering data with a rake and examining them under a microscope. Test scores may give the illusion of greater precision than the test actually provides. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 46
    • However, Kevin McGrew (http:// www.iapsych.com/IAPWEB/iap web.html) warns us that wide-band scores, such as scaled scores, can be dangerously imprecise. For example a scaled score of 4 might be equivalent to a standard score of 68, 69, or 70 (the range usually associated with intellectual disability) or 71 or 72 (above that range). 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 47
    • That lack of precision can have severe consequences when comparing scores, tracking progress, and deciding whether a defendant is eligible for special education or for the death penalty (http://www.atkinsmrdeath penalty.com/). 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 48
    • The WJ III, KTEA-II, and WIAT-III, for example use standard scores with Mean 100 & SD 15 for both (sub)tests and composites. This practice does not seem to have caused any harm, even if it is unsettling to those of us who trained on the 1949 WISC and 1955 WAIS. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 49
    • • Sometimes test scores offer a special utility. The 1986 StanfordBinet Fourth Ed. (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler), used composite scores with M = 100 and s.d. = 16 and subtest scores with M = 50 and s.d. = 8. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 50
    • With that clever system, you could convert subtest scores to composite scores simply by doubling the subtest score. It was very handy for evaluators. Mentally converting 43 to 86 was much easier than mentally converting scaled score 7 or T score 40 to standard score 85. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 51
    • Sample Explanation for Evaluators Choosing to Translate all Test Scores into a Single, Rosetta Stone Classification Scheme [In addition to writing the following note in the report, remind the reader again in at least two subsequent footnotes. Readers will forget.] 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 52
    • “Throughout this report, for all of the tests, I am using the stanine labels shown below (Very Low, Low, Below Average, Low Average, Average, High Average, Above Average, High, and Very High), even if the particular test may have a different labeling system in its manual.” 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 53
    • Stanines There are 200 &s, so &&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&& &&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&& Each && = 1 % &&&&&&& Standard Score &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& & &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Low 4% Percentile &&&&&&& &&&&&&& &&&&&&& Stanine &&&&&&& & Low 7% Below Average 12% Low Average 17% Average 20% High Average 17% Above Average 12% High 7% Very High 4% 1–4 4 - 11 11 - 23 23 - 40 40 – 60 60 – 77 77 - 89 89 - 96 96 -99 74 - 81 82 - 88 89 - 96 97 – 103 104 – 111 112- 118 119 - 126 127 - - 73 Scaled Score 1 – 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 – 19 v-score 1 – 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 – 24 T Score - 32 33 – 37 38 - 42 43 - 47 48 – 52 53 – 57 58 - 62 63 -67 68 - Adapted from Willis, J. O. & Dumont, R. P., Guide to identification of learning disabilities (1998 New York State ed.) (Acton, MA: Copley Custom Publishing, 1998, p. 26). Also available at http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/test_score_descriptions.htm. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 54
    • Obviously, that explanation is for translating all scores into stanines. You would modify the explanation if you elected to translate all scores into a different classification scheme. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 55
    • Sample Explanation for Evaluators Using the Rich Variety of Score Classifications Offered by the Several Publishers of the Tests Inflicted on the Innocent Examinee. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 56
    • “Throughout this report, for the various tests, I am using a variety of different statistics and different classification labels (e.g., Poor, Below Average, and High Average) provided by the test publishers. Please see p. i of the Appendix to this report for an explanation of the various classification schemes.” 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 57
    • There are 200 &s. Each && = 1%. & & & & &&&&&& &&&&&& & && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & &&&&&& &&&&&& & & & Percent in each 2.2% 6.7% 16.1% 50% 16.1% 6.7% 2.2% Standard Scores – 69 70 – 79 80 – 89 90 – 109 110 – 119 120 – 129 & 130 – Scaled Scores V-Scale Scores 1 2 3 1–8 T Scores < –2.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 – 29 z-scores 4 Percentile Ranks Wechsler Classification DAS Classification WoodcockJohnson Classif. Pro-Ed Classification KTEA II Classification Vineland Adaptive Levels – 02 Extremely Low Very Low Very Low Very Poor Lower Extreme Low – 70 30 – 36 – 2.00 – –1.34 03 – 08 37 – 42 – 1.33 – –0.68 09 – 24 Low Borderline Average Below Low Average Low Low Average Below Poor Average Below Average 70 – 84 Moderately Low 71 – 85 43 – 56 – 13 14 15 16 Standard 17 18 19 17 18 19 21 – Score20110 70 24 57 – 62 63 – 69 – 12 0.67 – 0.66 0.67 – 1.32 1.33 – 1.99 2.00 – 25 – 74 75 – 90 High Average Above Average 91 – 97 98 – Very Superior Very High Average Average Average (90 – 110) Average Average 85 – 115 Adequate 86 – 114 Superior High (111 – 120) Superior (121 – 130) Above Average Superior High Average Above Average 116 – 130 Moderately High 115 – 129 Very Superior (131 – ) Very Superior Upper Extreme High 130 – Adapted from Willis, J. O. & Dumont, R. P., Guide to identification of learning disabilities (1998 New York State ed.) (Acton, MA: Copley Custom Publishing, 1998, p. 27). Also available at http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/test_score_descriptions.htm.
    • My score is 110! I am adequate, average, high average, or above average. I’m glad that much is clear! 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 59
    • There are 200 &s. Each && = 1%. & & & & &&&&&& &&&&&& & && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & &&&&&& &&&&&& & & & Percent in each 2.2% 6.7% 16.1% 50% 16.1% 6.7% 2.2% Standard Scores – 69 70 – 79 80 – 89 90 – 109 110 – 119 120 – 129 & 130 – Scaled Scores V-Scale Scores 1 2 3 1–8 T Scores < –2.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 – 24 – 29 z-scores 4 BruininksOseretsky Percentile Ranks RIAS Classification Stanford-Binet Classification Leiter Classification Severe Delay = 30 – 39 WoodcockJohnson Classif. Pro-Ed Classification KTEA II Classification Vineland Adaptive Levels 30 – 36 – 2.00 – –1.34 37 – 42 – 1.33 – –0.68 43 – 56 57 – 62 63 – 69 70 – 0.67 – 0.66 0.67 – 1.32 1.33 – 1.99 2.00 – – 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 02 Significantly Below Av. 03 – 08 Moderately Below Av. 09 – 24 Below Average Moderately Impaired Borderline Low Average Low Below Average 40-54 Mildly Impaired 55-69 25 – 74 75 – 90 Above Average 91 – 97 Moderately Above Av. Average High Average Superior Average Above Average Average Very ModLow/ erate Delay Mild 40-54 Delay 55-69 Very Low Very Poor Lower Extreme Low – 70 Low Average Below Poor Average Below Average 70 – 84 Moderately Low 71 – 85 Low Average (90 – 110) Average Average 85 – 115 Adequate 86 – 114 High (111 – 120) Superior (121 – 130) Above Average Superior High Average Above Average 116 – 130 Moderately High 115 – 129 98 – Significantly Above Av. Gifted 130-144 Very Gifted 145-160 Very High/ Gifted Very Superior (131 – ) Very Superior Upper Extreme High 130 – Adapted from Willis, J. O. & Dumont, R. P., Guide to identification of learning disabilities (1998 New York State ed.) (Acton, MA: Copley Custom Publishing, 1998, p. 27). Also available at http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/test_score_descriptions.htm.
    • Wechsler Classification DAS Classification RIAS Classification Stanford-Binet Classification Leiter Classification Severe Delay = 30 – 39 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. WoodcockJohnson Classif. Pro-Ed Classification KTEA II Classification Vineland Adaptive Levels Extremely Low Very Low Significantly Below Av. Moderately Below Av. Moderately Impaired Borderline 40-54 Mildly Impaired 55-69 Borderline Low Very ModLow/ erate Delay Mild 40-54 Delay 55-69 Very Low Very Poor Lower Extreme Low – 70 Low Low Poor Below Average 70 – 84 Moderately Low 71 – 85 61
    • PUBLISHER'S SCORING SYSTEM FOR THE WECHSLER SCALES [These are not the student’s own scores, just the scoring systems for the tests.] When a new test is developed, it is normed on a sample of hundreds or thousands of people. The sample should be like that for a good opinion poll: female and male, urban and rural, different parts of the country, different income levels, etc. The scores from that norming sample are used as a yardstick for measuring the performance of people who then take the test. This human yardstick allows for the difficulty levels of different tests. The student is being compared to other students on both difficult and easy tasks. You can see from the illustration below that there are more scores in the middle than at the very high and low ends. Many different scoring systems are used, just as you can measure the same distance as 1 yard, 3 feet, 36 inches, 91.4 centimeters, 0.91 meter, or 1/1760 mile. PERCENTILE RANKS (PR) simply state the percent of persons in the norming sample who scored the same as or lower than the student. A percentile rank of 50 would be Average – as high as or higher than 50% and lower than the other 50% of the norming sample. The middle half of scores falls between percentile ranks of 25 and 75. STANDARD SCORES (called "quotients" on Pro-Ed tests) have an average (mean) of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. A standard score of 100 would also be at the 50th percentile rank. The middle half of these standard scores falls between 90 and 110. SCALED SCORES (called "standard scores" by Pro-Ed) are standard scores with an average (mean) of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. A scaled score of 10 would also be at the 50 th percentile rank. The middle half of these standard scores falls between 8 and 12. QUARTILES ordinarily divide scores into the lowest, next highest, next highest, and highest quarters (25%) of scores. However, they are sometimes modified as shown below. It is essential to know what kind of quartile is being reported. DECILES divide scores into ten groups, each containing 10% of the scores. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 62
    • There are Each && & & & && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 200 &s. = 1%. & &&&&&& &&&&&& & && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & &&&&&& &&&&&& & & & & Percent in each 2% 7% 16% 50% 16% 7% 2% Standard Scores - 69 70 – 79 80 - 89 90 – 109 110 – 119 120 - 129 130 - Scaled Scores Percentile Ranks 1 2 3 Wechsler IQ Classification WIAT-III Classifications 5 - 02 6 03 – 08 7 0 Lowest 5% 1 Next 20% 0 Lowest 25% 10 Extremely Low Very Low Low 55 – Low 55 – 54 69 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. 8 09 - 24 1 Lowest 25% Quartiles Modified Quartiles Modified Quartile-Based Scores Deciles 4 20 Borderline 10 11 12 25 – 74 2 Next 25% 2 Next 25% 1 Next 25% 30 40 50 Low Average Below Average 70 – 84 SAIF 9 3 Next 25% 3 Next 25% 2 Next 25% 60 70 80 Average Average 85 – 115 Statistics John O. Willis 13 75 – 90 14 15 16 17 18 19 91 - 97 98 - 4 Highest 25% 4 Highest 25% 3 Highest 25% 4 with 1 or more errors zero errors 90 High Average 100 Superior Above Average 116 – 130 Very Superior Super -ior 131145 Very Super -ior 146 – 63
    • It is essential that the reader know (and be reminded) precisely what classification scheme(s) we are using with the scores, whether we use all the different ones provided with the various tests or translate everything into a common language. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 64
    • However, bear in mind that all such classification schemes are arbitrary (not, as attorneys say, “arbitrary and capricious,” just arbitrary). 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 65
    • "It is customary to break down the continuum of IQ test scores into categories. . . . other reasonable systems for dividing scores into qualitative levels do exist, and the choice of the dividing points between different categories is fairly arbitrary. . . . 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 66
    • “It is also unreasonable to place too much importance on the particular label (e.g., 'borderline impaired') used by different tests that measure the same construct (intelligence, verbal ability, and so on)." [Roid, G. H. (2003). StanfordBinet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, Examiner's Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, p. 150.] 67
    • Life becomes more complicated when scores are not normally distributed, as is often the case with neuropsychological tests and behavioral checklists, and sometimes with visual-motor and language measures. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 68
    • It is easy to check. In a normal distribution (or one that has been brutally forced into the Procrustean bed of a normal distribution), the following scores should be equivalent. 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 69
    • If the standard scores do not match these percentile ranks in the norms tables, the score distribution is not normal and the standard scores and percentile ranks must be interpreted separately. See the test manual and other books by the test author(s). PR SS ss v T B-O z PR 99.9 98 84 50 16 02 0.1 145 130 115 100 85 70 55 19 16 13 10 7 4 1 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 +3.0 +2.0 +1.0 0 –1.0 –2.0 –3.0 99.9 98 84 50 16 02 0.1 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 70
    • 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 71
    • http://myweb.stedwards.edu/brianws/3328fa09/sec1/lecture11.htm Brian William Smith
    • Dumont/Willis Extra Easy Evaluation Battery (DWEEEB) http://alpha.fdu.edu/~dumont/psychology/DWEEBTOC.html 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 73
    • SCORES IN THE AVERAGE RANGE There are 200 &s. Each && = 1%. && && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & &&&&&& &&&&&& && && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& Percent .1% S.S. s.s && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & &&&&&& &&&&&& && && 99.8% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .1% 56 – 144 - 55 1 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 145 - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 T - 20 21 – 79 80 - PR - 0.1 0.2 – 99.8 99.9 - Average High Average Classi- Low fication Average There are 200 &s. Each && = 1%. & &&&&&& &&&&&& & & & & && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & &&&&&& &&&&&& Percent 49% 2% 49% S.S. < 100 100 & & & & > 100 s.s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 T < 50 50 - 48 4951 17 18 19 > 50 P. R. 16 52 - Classification 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. Below Average Above Average Average 74
    • A publisher calling a score “average” does not make the student’s performance average. If a student earned a Low Average reading score of 85 on the KTEA or WIAT-II and is then classified as Average for precisely the same score on the KTEA-II or WIAT-III, the student is still in the bottom 16% of the population! 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 75
    • HAND ME THAT GLUE GUN Byron Preston, 15, hasn't gone to school for four months. . . . He . . . was expelled for possession of a "weapon" -- a tattoo gun, which he took to school to practice tattooing on fruit. "It doesn't shoot anything," complains his father, James. "It just happens to have the word 'gun'." But school officials wouldn't listen, saying a student having a "gun" at school calls for automatic expulsion according to their zero tolerance policy. A Prince George's County Public Schools spokesman says the policy is "under review" by the school board. The Prestons have been told verbally that they won the appeal of the expulsion, but somehow the paperwork to reinstate Byron into school has 76 never shown up. (RC/WTTG-TV)
    • I call 90 - 109 “Average.” There are Each && & & & & &&&&&& &&&&&& 2 3 Extremely Low – 69 Very Low Low 55 – – 55 69 4 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 70 – 79 & - 69 1 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 200 &s. = 1%. 80 - 89 5 6 Borderline 70 – 79 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 7 8 Low Average 80 – 89 9 10 11 Average 90 – 109 & &&&&&& &&&&&& 110 – 119 90 – 109 Below Average 70 – 84 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 120 - 129 12 13 High Average 110 – 119 Average 85 – 115 SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 14 15 Superior 120 – 129 Above Average 116 – 130 & & & & 130 16 17 18 19 Very Superior 130 – Super Very -ior Super -ior 131145 146 – 77
    • I call 85 - 115 “Average.” There are Each && & & & & &&&&&& &&&&&& 2 3 Extremely Low – 69 Very Low Low 55 – – 55 69 4 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 70 – 79 & - 69 1 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 200 &s. = 1%. 80 - 89 5 6 Borderline 70 – 79 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 7 8 Low Average 80 – 89 9 10 11 Average 90 – 109 & &&&&&& &&&&&& 110 – 119 90 – 109 Below Average 70 – 84 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 120 - 129 12 13 High Average 110 – 119 Average 85 – 115 SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 14 15 Superior 120 – 129 Above Average 116 – 130 & & & & 130 16 17 18 19 Very Superior 130 – Super Very -ior Super -ior 131145 146 – 78
    • I call 80 - 119 “Average.” There are Each && & & & & &&&&&& &&&&&& 2 3 Extremely Low – 69 Very Low Low 55 – – 55 69 4 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 70 – 79 & - 69 1 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 200 &s. = 1%. 80 - 89 5 6 Borderline 70 – 79 && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 7 8 Low Average 80 – 89 9 10 11 Average 90 – 109 & &&&&&& &&&&&& 110 – 119 90 – 109 Below Average 70 – 84 3.11.13 Rivier Univ. && &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& 120 - 129 12 13 High Average 110 – 119 Average 85 – 115 SAIF Statistics John O. Willis 14 15 Superior 120 – 129 Above Average 116 – 130 & & & & 130 16 17 18 19 Very Superior 130 – Super Very -ior Super -ior 131145 146 – 79
    • I call him “Nice Kitty.” 80