ADVANCE FIGURE INTELLIGENCE SCALE (AFIS)<br />CHAPTER I – The Test and Its Setting<br /><ul><li> Introduction</li></ul>Individuals have different focused cognitive abilities. Such as when high school student is more aligned to Science subject (such as relying on observation, formulating hypothesis, predictions, and experimentation). But there is a tendency to decrease attention and concentration on the other field of subjects like English or Mathematics which might lead into extinction. When these are all mastered, it may induce conflicts that consumed time and effort, thinking what must be the first to prioritize. <br />Ethnic groups (such as Aetas, Mangyans, Igorots, etc.) are not familiar with the changes occurred on industrialized environment like the development of cellular phones, computers, or even improvement on vehicles. This is the fact that their cultural background was followed from descendants and passes through next generation. Their lifestyle was quite simple and traditional; from the house made from nipa hut; the use of charcoal as a source of heat; and their practical ability to search for food without relying money. Also, ethnic groups have their own way of teaching their children, despite big differences in the languages used by other nationalities. <br />The following mentioned factors were made because of intelligence. Intelligence is the whole term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. No one in this world has not gifted by intelligence because without this, he or she cannot comprehend ideas, unable to solve problems, and cannot survive in everyday life. The problem arises if there’s inadequacy on some abilities. Some high school students and ethnic groups have language and comprehension problems that made them difficult to understand and some formed faulty verbal communication. In order to minimize the impact of language skills and cultural bias, a non-verbal intelligence test known as Advance Figure Intelligence Scale (AFIS) is an instrument used the innate ability of an individual on how he thinks quickly in a given situation as well as to reason out abstractly.<br />The Advance Figure Intelligence Scale is adapted from Dr. John C. Raven’s “Raven’s Progressive Matrices”. This is an intelligence scale designed to cover the widest possible range of mental ability and to be equally useful with persons of all ages, whatever their education, nationality, or physical conditions. This scale is also developed to provide a reliable estimate of a person’s capacity to think clearly when allowed to work steady at his or her own speed from the beginning to the end without interruption. It covers the whole range of intellectual development from the time a child is able to grasp the idea of finding a missing piece to complete a pattern to the levels of ability required to form comparison and reason by analogy.<br />The purpose of this paper is to develop and form test norms or scales. The test, unlike any others, is made for individuals in school settings (elementary, high school, college levels), psychodiagnosis in clinical settings, as well as intellectual assessment on industrial settings. The test was concerned about individuals innate on how he thinks quickly in a given situation as well as to reason out abstractly.<br /><ul><li> Purpose and Objectives
The Advance Figure Intelligence Scale was constructed to measure the intelligence of an individual. Furthermore the test aimed to:
Help students determine their I. Q. Level. Those who have obtained high I.Q. does not emphasize intellectual superiority, but rather for the assessment of their logical thinking. Additionally, teachers or professors must develop special activities or programs that will enable the student to improve his or her problem solving ability in a logical manner.
Serve as psychodiagnosis in clinical setting, to determine the intellectual capacity of a client or patient who has mental and behavioral problems.
Help the human resource officer or managers to identify the best productive employees, by determining their logical ability. A person who thinks logically can solve problems in a more accurate manner.
Significance of the Study:</li></ul>Results of this study therefore can guide:<br /><ul><li>Students. In helping them to determine their I.Q level by the use of this test.
Teachers. This will give them the basic information regarding the logical intelligence of their students.
Future Researchers. For the other researchers who are planning to conduct a study, this may guide them in doing research works and help them obtain other information that they will be needed.</li></ul>1.4. Conceptual Paradigm<br />Advance Figure Intelligence Scale<br />John RavenRaymond CattellCharles Spearman<br />Standard Progressive MatricesFluid Intelligence TheoryGeneral Intelligence Factor Theory<br /><ul><li> Conceptual Framework</li></ul>The AFIS was based on Dr. John C. Raven’s “Standard Progressive Matrices; General Intelligence Factor (g factor) Theory by Charles Spearman and Fluid Intelligence Theory developed by Raymond Cattell in relation to the test constructed.<br />John Raven constructed this test on this theoretical basis. There follows a brief description of its main characteristics: <br />• It is a test of intellectual capacity, of general mental ability. <br />• It is a factor test, it evaluates the component of the G factor, the eductive capacity, i.e. <br />to make sense out of confusion, to shape variables, to go beyond that which is given or obvious. <br />• It is a non-verbal test. <br />• It is a multiple choice test. <br />• It is a test of multiple choice lacunar matrices. The individual’s task is to complete series of drawings in which the last drawing is missing, selecting the appropriate one from a range of possible choices. <br />General Intelligence Factor Theory attempt to quantify the mental ability underlying results of various tests of cognitive ability. This model provides framework in which all variations in intelligence test scores are explained by two factors: first, a factor specific to an individual mental task: the individual abilities that would make a person more skilled at a specific cognitive task; and second a general factor g that governs performance on all cognitive tasks. <br />Fluid intelligence is the ability to reason quickly and to think abstractly. This type of intelligence tends to decline during late adulthood. This type of g factor involves our current ability to reason and deal with complex information around us, crystallized intelligence involves learning, knowledge and skills that are acquired over a lifetime.<br />In conclusion, these theories are helpful for understanding and predicting how individual comprehend the figures as a whole and think complexity more than what he had achieve on present cognition.<br />1.6. Review of Related Literature<br />1.6.1. Foreign Literature<br /><ul><li> The technical assistance paper (TAP) provides an introduction to the field of nonverbal assessment of intelligence followed by questions and answers that are relevant to the topic. Specifically, it elaborates on the clinical decision to use nonverbal tests of intelligence for students who may have economic, cultural, or language/communication issues that could introduce significant error to the full scale IQ scores obtained with many comprehensive tests. It is strongly suggested, however, that the principles and recommendations embedded in this technical assistance paper be considered best practice in evaluation and be applied on an individual bases with all students who are being evaluated.</li></ul>Introduction <br />Nonverbal intellectual assessment is the process of assessing the construct of intelligence without placing receptive or expressive language demands on either the examinee or the examiner (McCallum, Bracken & Wasserman, 2001). Most of these tests were designed to measure general cognition without the confounding effect of language ability; they are not designed to be tests of a construct such as “nonverbal intelligence” (DeThorne & Schaefer, 2004). Ideally, verbal test directions and spoken responses should not be required during the administration of a nonverbal test. It should be noted that a measure of intelligence (verbal, nonverbal, or a combination of both) is only one factor used in the determination of a disability under the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For students suspected of having a disability, the evaluation should be a comprehensive assessment and may or may not include a standardized test of intelligence. Depending on the specific areas of concern prompting the referral, a comprehensive assessment might include but is not limited to an evaluation of adaptive behavior, a social-developmental history, and an assessment of current academic functioning. Multiple sources of data should be explored by including input from parents, teachers, and others who know the student well. Finally, multiple methods for gathering data should be included in any broad-based assessment. These methods for obtaining information include observations, interviews, review of records, and formal and informal tests. <br />Purpose<br />This TAP is designed to assist Florida school districts in conducting appropriate assessments with students who are struggling learners and in meeting the needs of exceptional students. It is intended to provide guidance in determining the supports and services necessary to meet the academic, social, and cognitive goals of these students and has been developed through a review of professional literature; consultation with experts in the fields of language deficiencies, intellectual assessment, and mentally handicapping conditions; and input from school district personnel in exceptional student education and school psychology. <br />Questions and Answers <br />How do I decide which test of intelligence, if any, is appropriate for a given student?<br />The psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of a test are important factors to consider. Information on validity and reliability should be available through the published technical manuals accompanying each test. The psychometric strengths and weaknesses of a given test should be evaluated thoroughly before a decision is made to administer it for data collection or eligibility consideration. An examiner deciding which test to administer should ensure to the greatest extent possible that the sample of students used in the norming of the test reflects the age, grade, ethnicity, and other critical features of the student being evaluated. Finally, a student’s English language proficiency as well as his or her cultural background should be considered when deciding the type of intellectual assessment tool to administer (i.e., language free or language-reduced or language-loaded). <br />2. Are test selection procedures different for a student from a racial or ethnic minority group than for a student with an English language deficiency or a language-processing deficit? <br />No. The process for test selection should not vary, but the choice of the test actually used in a comprehensive assessment may be different based on the presenting characteristics of the student. Research indicates that the type of intellectual measure used can influence the rate of exceptional education eligibility for certain racial/ethnic groups (Macmillan et al., 1998). In all cases, if a language-loaded test would introduce bias to the assessment results, then the data should not be interpreted as a unitary construct representing the student’s overall intellectual functioning. This is not to suggest that the data should be ignored. All results should be interpreted within the context of the student and the learning environment in which he or she is expected to achieve and progress. <br />3. In evaluating students with English language deficiencies or ethnic differences, how might results differ between a broad-based intellectual evaluation (assessing both verbal and nonverbal abilities) and those from a nonverbal assessment? <br />Most tests are designed to measure general intelligence. Similar to the response for the previous question, if a student has a language deficiency, scores generated from tests that require verbal activity from both the examiner and the examinee may introduce more error to the overall estimate of intelligence than nonverbal tests. In other words, if a language-loaded test is administered to a student with suspected language difficulties (language-processing disorder, English as a second language, limited English proficiency, poor articulation, or cultural differences that could impact a student’s communication skills) and the results fall outside normal limits, it is imperative that the examiner review all possible explanations for the discrepancy before drawing conclusions about the student’s level of cognitive functioning. In some cases, the global IQ score attained for a student may significantly under-represent his or her intellectual capacity because of specific language processing and communication deficits or cultural and environmental experiences and opportunities. When assessed using a nonverbal measure of intelligence, this same student may achieve substantially higher scores that more appropriately reflect his or her level of functioning. <br />4. Which test results should be used when a significant discrepancy exists between the verbal and the non-verbal scores? <br />The individual responsible for conducting the assessment should use his or her professional judgment regarding which test results are most representative of the student’s current level of intellectual functioning and identify which variables, if any, have skewed the outcome data. Evaluators, including school psychologists; ESE, LEP, and ESOL teachers; and speech/ language pathologists, should consult with each other to explore various hypotheses about inconsistent test results before drawing conclusions about the student’s capacity in the learning environment. <br />Since in some cases there may be a greater error factor in verbal subtests, direct comparisons between verbal and nonverbal tests may be misleading. Verbal tests given to students with limited English proficiency, for example, can have value as baseline estimates and should not automatically be excluded from an assessment battery. As always, the staffing team should review all relevant data available for a particular student before making decisions about eligibility for special education services. In some cases, additional, more focused assessment may be required for consideration in the problem-solving process.<br />5. How do the racial/ethnic or linguistic characteristics of the examiner affect the performance of the examinee? <br />Research to date has not supported the existence of a systematic effect of the race/ethnicity of the examiner on test performance of students from similar or different racial/ethnic groups. However, if the language of the examiner is difficult for the student to understand or vice-versa, the results of an evaluation that is language-loaded may be compromised. Nonverbal measures may be the most appropriate choice under these circumstances. <br />The ability to develop and maintain rapport is considered more important than the ethnic or language characteristics of the examiner per se. When testing students who are deaf or hearing-impaired, it is important that the examiner accurately assess his or her own communication skills (i.e., sign language) and the skills of the student (i.e., total language approach) and employ the expertise of a qualified interpreter if needed. Similar practice is recommended when assessing a student who has limited English proficiency. In some situations, either a translator should be present or, ideally, a bilingual psychologist should administer the assessment. This is particularly important if conclusions regarding the student’s intellectual functioning will be drawn from a comprehensive test (verbal and nonverbal) that requires language skills in which the student is deficit or impaired. <br />6. How might performance on verbal and nonverbal intellectual evaluations differ for a student who has a language processing deficiency but is English speaking? <br />Language impairments may impact a student’s performance on a test where receptive and/or expressive language skills are measured. A student with a language processing deficiency will likely score less well on tasks on an intelligence test that requires receptive language skills and in some cases, expressive language skills. If an eligibility team were to place too much emphasis on the overall results (full scale or global score) of a comprehensive test of intelligence without considering the impact the language deficiency had on the student’s performance, the interpretation may significantly underestimate the student’s current level of functioning. <br />Some districts in Florida compare a student’s IQ score with the results of a language assessment to determine if a significant difference in performance exists (one or more standard deviations). Other districts look at how language scores compare to a normative mean, and still other districts may choose to compare language scores with the results of an intellectual screening test. Specific policy is defined in the district special programs and procedures manual; however, regardless of local practice, if the results of an intellectual screening measure are of questionable validity, the student should be referred to the school-based, problem-solving team (child study team, student support team) to determine if further assessment is necessary. While districts have some autonomy in defining their own practices, it is best practice to review all of the available data to determine if patterns of performance emerge with both standardized assessment and authentic, cur-riculum-based assessment. Please refer to the technical assistance paper, “The Use of Part Scores with Tests of Intelligence,” for more specific information on this issue. <br />7. How do personnel other than the school psychologist (i.e., speech/language pathologist, ESE teachers, LEP teachers, and ESOL teachers) contribute to the problem-solving process as it relates to ESE eligibility for students with English language concerns? <br />There are many assessment and intervention specialists who can provide unique information to the problem-solving team. For example, an ESOL teacher may provide insight about the cultural variables that can affect student outcomes and can offer guidance as to when an assessment should be administered in the student’s first language. Exceptional and general education teachers may offer the team functional achievement data and recommend appropriate intervention strategies based on the student’s learning profile. These interventions can provide information regarding the student’s rate of learning and skill acquisition when evidence-based instruction is provided with consistency and integrity. For students whose academic functioning may be compromised by a lack of exposure to such instruction, this response to intervention (RtI) method of measuring growth can be data-rich and exceedingly important in determining eligibility for ESE services. In addition, speech/language pathologists provide insight regarding a student’s capacity to process language effectively and efficiently. This type of collaboration designed to identify the primary area of need for the student and generate specific interventions is more effective than analyzing and interpreting test results in isolation.<br />Appendix A<br />Specific Assessment Tools Used in Nonverbal Assessment of Intelligence<br />The Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (C-TONI), the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT), and the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) are examples of tests of intelligence that are administered in a nonverbal manner. With the exception of a few subtests, the Leiter-Revised is also primarily a nonverbal measure as is the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-II (KABC-II) when administering the nonverbal subtests using the pantomimed administration specified by the test authors. These tests are different from instruments that are language-reduced tests where examinees must understand spoken test directions in order to attempt the required tasks, even if those tasks do not require a verbal response from the examinee. As do all assessment tools, nonverbal tests vary on important characteristics including comprehensiveness, psychometric quality, representation of diverse groups in the standardization sample, and appropriateness for individual or group administration. <br />In addition, nonverbal tests may be classified as unidimensional or multidimensional. Unidimensional tests are those that use progressive matrices to measure a narrow aspect of intelligence. The Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-third edition (TONI-III), C-TONI, Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), and RPM are all unidimensional tests. In contrast, it is suggested that multidimensional tests are more comprehensive and assess a broader range of cognitive skills such as attention, memory, and reasoning. The UNIT and Leiter-R are typically considered multidimensional tests; however, interpretation of extended cognitive skills from the assessment results should be corroborated with other supporting data. <br />1.6.2. Foreign Studies<br />T. J. Branoff (1999) provides a study to determine the effectiveness of using trimetric pictorials instead of isometric pictorials on the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test - Visualization of Rotations. Undergraduate students enrolled in Graphic Communications courses completed computer versions of the PSVT and the Mental Rotations Test (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978) during the first six weeks of classes. The instruments were used to record student responses and response times as well as information on gender, current major, and number of previous graphics courses completed. The control group completed the original version of the PSVT (isometric pictorials) and the MRT. The experimental group completed a revised version of the PSVT (trimetric pictorials) and the MRT. The researcher hypothesized that trimetric pictorials would be a more sensitive predictor of spatial visualization. <br />Based on the statistical analyses, it appears that the revised PSVT is as good a measure of spatial visualization ability as the original PSVT. Based on exit interviews with some of the students, the trimetric pictorials used in the revised PSVT seemed to eliminate confusion on the last several items that typically occurred with the isometric pictorials. If the instrument is suppose to evaluate a person's ability to mentally rotate objects, other tasks that hinder a person's ability to do this (i.e. trying to determine the object's shape when confused by accidental or coincidental edges) only call into question the validity of the test. The differences in response times between the original and revised versions of the PSVT suggest that students took more time with the isometric pictorials than with the trimetric pictorials.<br />F. R. Morgan (1990) study discusses the relationship between bilingualism and mental development of bilingual children. After a review of the relevant literature, a specific study is described. The linguistic background of 648 children from 29 schools, age 10 through 12 inclusive, was measured with the Welsh Linguistic Background Scale. General intelligence was assessed with three nonverbal tests: Raven's Progressive Matrices, Daniel's Figure Reasoning Test and the Non-Verbal Test No. 2 of the National Foundation for Educational Research. Objectives were to: (1) determine which of the nonverbal tests was the most independent of linguistic background and hence most suitable for intelligence testing in mixed language areas, and (2) describe the relationship between linguistic background and test scores. Conclusions are that: (1) none of the tests used is completely suitable for evaluating Welsh-speaking children if the results are to be compared with those of English-speaking children; (2) Welsh-dominant bilingual children scored consistently lower than English-dominant children; (3) a correlation exists between test performance and degree of bilingualism; (4) the location of a community accentuates the influence of bilingualism; (5) occupational levels and socioeconomic status must be considered when interpreting test scores; and (6) Raven's Progressive Matrices is the most independent test. (CLK)<br />1.7. Definition of Terms<br />The following terms are used in this test construction which is defined technically or operationally:<br />Cognitive Abilities / Cognition - refers to a faculty for the processing of information, applying knowledge, and changing preferences.<br />Cultural Bias - is the phenomenon of interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one's own culture.<br />Non-Verbal Intelligence - it is the ability to analyze information and solve problems using visual, or hands-on reasoning.<br />Verbal Communication – also known as Oral Communication. Oral communication includes discussion, speeches, presentations, interpersonal communication and many other varieties. In face to face communication the body language and voice tonality plays a significant role and may have a greater impact on the listener than the intended content of the spoken words.<br />Intelligence Quotient (IQ) - is a measure of relative intelligence determined by a standardized test.<br />Crystallized Intelligence - can be defined as "the extent to which a person has absorbed the content of culture. It is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. It should not be equated with memory or knowledge, but it does rely on accessing information from long-term memory.<br />7. Psychodiagnosis - Any of various methods used to discover the factors that underlie behavior, especially maladjusted or abnormal behavior. It is the branch of clinical psychology that emphasizes the use of psychological tests and techniques for assessing mental illness.<br />Norms - A designated standard of average performance of people of a given age, background, etc.<br />Stimulus - are energy patterns which are registered by the senses.<br />1.8. Scope and Delimitations of the Test<br />The AFIS was first developed with 200 items and each set consists of 40 items (Set A, B, C, D, and E). The test was conducted at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Main Campus located in Anonas St. , Sta Mesa, Manila. The test was administered on April 16, 2011 among 130 freshmen accountancy students (20 % of the 654 total population of Freshmen Accountancy students).<br />The AFIS was constructed to determine the innate logical ability of an individual without the aid of language and formal education. Researchers used Simple Random Sampling in conducting the test. Simple Random Sampling is a subset of a frame, or of an associated population, chosen in such a fashion that every possible subset of like size has an equal chance of being selected ( J. Birion & E. De Jose, 2000).<br />1.9. Test Development<br />The name of test, particularly the term “Advance Figure” was based on different figures which have different forms and varies from each other. The scale gradually increases its difficulty from easy, average, and difficult level by which the examiner would attempt to succeed from each item. In this process, it will measure his/her intellectual capacity to think critically, problem solving ability, and innate logical ability.<br />Each item of the scale was first drawn based on the pattern of figures on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Several revisions were made due to technical problems; mostly blurred items are automatically rejected because it cannot be answered clearly by the examiner. Researchers constructed 200 items with 40 items for each sets A, B, C, D, and E for item analysis and face validation. <br />The researchers were consulted some professionals regarding the validity of the scale. However, the scale cannot be corrected by face validation and so they suggested that the scale must undergone pilot testing and treated by item analysis in order to determine the easy, average, and difficult items. <br />AFIS was conducted at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Main Campus to 130 Freshmen Accountancy Students on April 16, 2011. Researchers presented a letter of permission to Accountancy professors from each section, which is undersigned by the test construction adviser, Prof. Corazon C. Constantino.<br />Due to financial shortage, instead of giving the whole test booklet to each examiner, the researchers asked cooperation from the students and change their sitting arrangement for five rows. This five rows represented as five sets of the test (for example, for first row – SET A, second row – SET B, and so on). Each set of the test has an alloted time of 20 minutes and covered the whole test fo 60 minutes (1 hour). After sets of the test were finished, each row was passed the whole test booklet into another row in a clockwise direction (for example, for first row – SET B, second row – SET C, and so on). Researchers were observed that the student got exhausted in answering the test, particular sets C, D, and E and they had given refreshments to ease their mental fatigue. After this test, SRA – Nonverbal Test was conducted to the accountancy students for the correlation of the AFIS. This non-verbal test is a standardized test consist of 48 items which the examiner will identify the different pattern among figures with alloted time of 30 minutes.<br />The researchers, then collected the answer sheets and checked their answers. These data are tallied with the aid of columnar pad for item analysis and split- half reliability. Item analysis were helped the researchers and test validators in determining the items that are appropriate for examiner’s intellectual capacity and items that are accepted or rejected. After the tabulation of data, researchers presented a computerized form that was served as a first draft of item analysis. AFIS was validated by Prof. Luz Centeno and Prof. Cynthia Equiza and they observed that some items on Set A and Set B are rejected because of very easy questions that was obviously answered. After this, the test validators are recommended that each set of the test must be in 10 items with total of 50 items to avoid mental exhaustion to the examiners. Reseachers then consulted a technical specialist, specifically those who knowledgable in AUTOCAD for the final test questions of the AFIS.<br />1.10. Table of Specification (First Draft)<br />Test No.DescriptionKey LetterNo. of ItemsPercentageSet APattern AnalysisPA4020%Set BVisuo-Spatial FunctionsVSF4020%Set CClear Thinking and Keen ObservationCKO4020%Set DEductive AbilityEA4020%Set EReproductive AbilityRA4020%TOTAL200100%<br />1.11. Table of Specification – Second Draft (After Face Validation)<br />Test No.DescriptionKey LetterItems Nos.No. of ItemsPercentageSet APattern AnalysisPA15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 401410.69%Set BVisuo-Spatial FunctionsVSF3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 34, 361813.74%Set CClear Thinking and Keen ObservationCKO7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 403022.9%Set DEductive AbilityEA1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 403627.48%Set EReproductive AbilityRA2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 333325.19%TOTAL131100%<br />1.13. Description of the Test<br />The Advance Figure Intelligence Scale (AFIS) is a non-verbal intelligence test to identify the individual’s innate logical ability, problem-solving, reasoning and critical thinking regardless of his or her academic achievement, cultural differences, and language discrepancies.<br />The test consist of five sets, with 10 lacunar matrices on each set. This sets has a significant functions, which are the following:<br /> <br />1. Pattern Analysis (Set A) – this is an abstract/visual reasoning indicates the examinee’s abilities to solve problems through reasoning, and to determine the logic behind patterns.<br />2. Visuo-Spatial Functions (Set B) – this subtest analyzes and understands space in two to three dimensions. It includes mental imagery and navigation, distance, and depth perception and visuo-spatial construction.<br />3. Clear Thinking and Keen Observation (Set C)<br />4. Eductive Ability (Set D) – this comprises new insights, perceive, and identify relationship, generate new largely non-verbal concepts which made it possible and to think clearly.<br />5. Reproductive Ability (Set E) – this subtest measures the ability to recall and use, a culture’s store of explicit, verbalized concepts.<br />1.14. Description of the Test Taker<br />The AFIS was administered to the 130 Freshmen Accountancy students with age 16-18 years old at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. They were selected due to the availability of their population and free schedule. This test was also applicable to assess the logical intellectual ability of an applicant on industrial settings and psychodiagnosis in clinical settings.<br />1.15. Test Scoring<br />The scoring of AFIS can be corrected using a simple answer key. When the raw score was obtained, it has corresponding interpretation based on computed norms.<br />NORMSINTERPRETATION48-50Excellent44-47Superior38-43Above Average30-37Average20-29Below Average12-19Borderline6-11Moderate Low Intelligence3-5Low Intelligence1-2Extreme Low Intelligence<br />Excellent (48-50) – This person has a keen, concentrated, and very high problem solving ability in a short period of time. He is highly logical, critical thinker, and has an intact reasoning ability.<br />Superior (44-47) – This person is intellectually superior with highly logical in resolving difficulties of his situation, whether it is mental or emotional.<br />Above Average (38-43) – This person is well-focused and likes to solve problems in a logical manner. Oftentimes, his practical reasoning are not intact.<br />Average (30-37) – This person has an average logical thinking, and sustainable for problem-solving, However, he is distracted and lack focusness which consumes a lot of time.<br />Below Average (20-29) – This person is quite distrurbed with external stimuli and even with his situation, but logically strives to solve in a huge amount of time.<br />Borderline (12-19) – This person is relatively logical, but reasoning ability might be inaccurate.<br />Moderately Low Intelligence (6-11) – This person is moderately low in logical ability to solve difficult tasks and consumes huge amount of time. He can reasonably think, but have some doubts with his action.<br />Low Intelligence (3-5) – This person is unable to think logically and has gradual formulation of practical reasoning. He needs assistance from others to solve his tasks independently.<br />Extremely Low Intelligence (1-2) – This person totally lacks logical and critical thinking; problem- solving, and practical reasoning. This person needs special treatment to improve his visual acuity or logical thinking.<br />1.16. Establishing Norms<br /><ul><li>Stanine Method
The researchers applied the stanine method to establish the norms of the scale. Stanine scale ( Murphy & Davidshofer, 1998) is a commonly used statistical means of interpreting scores and is dependent on the assumption that the measured trait is distributed normally in the general population, so that a graphic representation of the distribution would closely approximate the so-termed “bell-shaped curve.” In a normal raw-score distribution, the greatest number of cases is focused on the middle while the remaining cases are distributed symmetrically on either side, decreasing as the distance from the center becomes greater. It follows that, within the limits imposed by a particular raw-score distribution, transformed stanine scores can be expected to conform to the proportions of this normal curve with a permanent percent of cases falling within each of the nine classifications, as illustrated below:
Stanine Scale</li></ul>Formula: s=N x P where: s = Stanine<br />N= Total Number of Respondents<br />P= Percentage<br />Computation For Stanine (in Tabulated Format)<br />Stanine 1 = N x P = 130 x .04 = 5.2Stanine 2 = N x P = 130 x .07 = 9.1Stanine 3 = N x P = 130 x .12 = 15.6Stanine 4 = N x P = 130 x .17 = 22.1Stanine 5 = N x P = 130 x .20 = 26Stanine 6 = N x P = 130 x .17 = 22.1Stanine 7 = N x P = 130 x .12 = 15.6Stanine 8 = N x P = 130 x .07 = 9.1Stanine 9 = N x P = 130 x .04 = 5.2<br />Data:<br />TheoreticalPercentage.04.07.12.17.20.17.12.07.04Stanine123456789N = 130Computed Stanine22.214.171.1242.126126.96.36.199.2<br />THEORETICALPERCENTAGENORMSSTANINEINTERPRETATIONOF NORMS.04126-1309Excellent.07117-1258Superior.12101-1167Above Average.1779-1006Average.2053-785Below Average.1731-524Borderline.1215-303Moderately Low Intelligence.076-142Low Intelligence.041-51Extremely Low Intelligence<br />CHAPTER 2<br />ITEM ANALYSIS AND TEST RELIABILITY<br />2.1. Item Analysis<br />The item analysis is a basic and appropriate method that involves assessment of item difficulty, the percent of the group tested that answered the question correctly; and item discriminability and/or discrimination, how well the item distinguishes between the more knowledgeable and the less knowledgeable examinees. Thus, item analysis as a set of methods used to evaluate test items, is one of the most essential aspects of test construction (Kaplan and Saccuzzo, 2001). In short, the immediate purposes of an item analysis are thus to determine the difficulty and discriminability of each item.<br />The U – L Method<br />The researchers applied the U-L Method which is first developed by Stocklein (1957). The steps are described below: <br />Arrange N papers by score, placing the one with the highest score on top and continuing sequentially until the one with the lowest score is on the bottom.<br />Multiply N, the total number of tests, by 27 percent and round off the result to the nearest whole number; this number is represented by n.<br />Count off the n best papers from the top of the stack. This is the “high” group.<br />Count off the n poorest papers from the bottom of the stack. This is the “low” group.<br />Determine the proportion in the high group (PH) in which each item was answered correctly by dividing the number of correct answers for the high group by n; that is,<br /> number of correct answers <br /> PH = n<br />The same procedure for the low group to obtain PL for each item.<br /> 6.To obtain an item difficulty index, p (that is, the proportion of the total group in which each item was answered correctly) adds PH and PL and divides by 2: <br /> PH + PL <br /> P = 2<br />This must be interpreted with the chance level of the item in mind. For example, p = .5 for a two-option item that all examinees mark probably indicates little or no knowledge of the point tested. To obtain the significance of difficulty index, the interpretation was described below:<br />DIFFICULTY INDEXITEM EVALUATION.91 – 1.0 Very Easy Item.76 - .9 Easy Item.25 - .75 Average Item.10 - .24Difficulty Item.00 - .09Very Difficult Item<br /> <br />7. To obtain a measure of item discrimination (i.e., how well this item distinguished between the examinees who understand the content universe of the test well and those who do not), subtract PL from PH:<br />D = PH - PL<br /> Any item whose discrimination is being assessed also contributes a fraction of the total test score, which is the basis in the identification of the “high” and “low” groups. The degree of internal contamination due to the overlap of item with total test is influenced by test length, that is, the fewer items on the test, the greater the proportion each item contributes to the total score. This factor becomes serious only on very short test. Ebel’s rules of thumb are employed for interpreting item discrimination index values, more particularly, classroom tests are adapted and relevant to the description and contribution of an item to a test’s reliability, as described below:<br />INDEX OF DISCRIMINATIONITEM EVALUATION.40 and upVery Good Item.30 - .39Reasonably Good Item.20 – .29Marginal Item (Usually subject to improvement).19 - BelowPoor Item (To be rejected or revised)<br />2.1.2. Computation for Item Difficulty for AFIS (Tabulated Format)<br />ItemsSteps for Item Difficultyand Item Discrimination (SET A)1. Arrange the scores from highest to lowest 2. Identify and separate the upper 27% counting from the top (No. Of students from x .27)3. Identify and separate the lower 27% counting from the top)4. Find the 27% upper by dividing the total frequency for the right answer by the number of 27% of the examinees5.Find the 27% lower by dividing total frequency for the right answer by the number of 27% of the examinees.6. For item difficulty, add the result in the 27% upper and 27% lower and divide by 2.7. For item discrimination, subtract the results in the upper and lower 27%.1130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13435 = 0.9735+3435 = 2130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3135 = 0.892335 = 0.6631+2335 =3130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13235 = 0.9135+3235 =4130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.973235 = 0.9134+3235 =5130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3335 = 0.943035 = 0.8633+3035 =6130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13235 = 0.9135+3235 =7130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.973335 = 0.9434+3335 =8130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 12935 = 0.8335+2935 =9130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13035 = 0.8635+3035 =10130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13335 = 0.9435+3335 =11130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.972935 = 0.8334+2935 =12130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13035 = 0.8635+3035 =13130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13035 = 0.8635+3035 =14130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 13235 = 0.9135+3235 =15130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3135 = 0.891635 = 0.4631+1635 =16130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3335 = 0.942335 = 0.6635 =17130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 12535 = 0.7135 =18130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 12735 = 0.7735 =19130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 12835 = 0.835 =20130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.972635 = 0.7435 =21130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3235 = 0.912135 = 0.635 =22130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 11935 = 0.5435 =23130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.972435 = 0.6935 =24130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 11635 = 0.4635 =25130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 11435 = 0.435 =26130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3335 = 0.941435 = 0.435 =27130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3135 = 0.893135 = 0.8935 =28130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 12035 = 0.5735 =29130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.971635 = 0.4635 =30130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.972935 = 0.8335 =31130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.972735 = 0.7735 =32130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.972635 = 0.7435 =33130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.971835 = 0.5135 =34130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 12635 = 0.7435 =35130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 11735 = 0.4935 =36130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students1735 = 0.491235 = 0.3435 =37130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3335 = 0.941635 = 0.4635 =38130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 11835 = 0.5135 =39130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3535 = 11635 = 0.4635 =40130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students130 x .27 = 35.1 or 35 students3435 = 0.972135 = 0.635 =<br />Result of Item Analysis:<br />2.2. Test Reliability<br />Reliability is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same result on repeated trials. Without the agreement of independent observers able to replicate research procedures, or the ability to use research tools and procedures that yield consistent measurements, researchers would be unable to satisfactorily draw conclusions, formulate theories, or make claims about the generalization of their research. <br />The researchers were used a type of test reliability known as internal consistency reliability. Internal consistency is typically a measure based on the correlations between different items on the same test (or the same subscale on a larger test). It measures whether several items that propose to measure the same general construct produce similar scores. Split half method is a useful technique to assess the internal consistency of AFIS.<br />Split-Half Method of Reliability is done by splitting the test into two, the odd numbered items as one, and the even numbered items as the other. The scores of the examinees on the odd-numbered items (X variable) are correlated with their scores on the even-numbered items (Y variable) through the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. It is an interval / ratio measure of association indicating the existence, degree / or direction of relationship between variables. It is symbolized as r. The formula for the Pearson Product Moment r is illustrated below:<br />111188521590<br />Where:<br />NTotal number of population or response<br />∑denotes the summation of the items indicated<br />∑Xdenotes the sum of all X scores<br />∑X2indicates that each X score should be squared and then those squares summed<br />(∑X)2indicates that the X scores should be summed and the total squared. [avoid confusing ∑X2 (the sum of the X squared scores) and (∑X)2 (the square of the sum of the X scores]<br />∑Ydenotes the sum of all y-scores<br />∑Y2indicates that each Y score should be squared and then those squares summed<br />(∑Y)2indicates that the Y scores should be summed and the total squared<br />∑XYindicates that each X score should be first multiplied by its corresponding Y score and the product (XY) summed<br />Interpretation of r:<br />1.00 : Perfect Correlation0 : No Correlation<br />0.82 – 0.99 : Very High Correlation<br />0.60 – 0.79 : High Correlation<br />0.40 – 0.59 : Moderate Correlation<br />0.20 – 0.39 : Low Correlation<br />0.1 – 0.19 : Negligible (Very Low) Correlation<br />To obtain the reliability of the entire test, a correction formula must be applied, which is the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula as follows:<br /> rtt = 2roe <br /> 1+roe<br /> where rtt = the reliability of the original test<br /> roe = the reliability obtained by<br /> correlating the scores on the odd<br /> items with the scores of the even<br />Spearman–Brown prophecy formula is a formula relating psychometric reliability to test length and used by psychometricians to predict the reliability of a test after changing the test length. The formula is also helpful in understanding the nonlinear relationship between test reliability and test length. Test length must grow by increasingly larger values as the desired reliability approaches 1.0.<br />If the longer/shorter test is not parallel to the current test, then the prediction will not be strictly accurate. For example, if a highly reliable test was lengthened by adding many poor items then the achieved reliability will probably be much lower than that predicted by this formula.<br />2.2.1. Computation of Pearson r of the Whole Test<br />N = 130∑Y = 8,976<br />∑X = 9, 763∑Y2 = 641, 890<br />∑X2 = 647, 963∑XY = 648, 811<br />Formula:<br />Solution:<br />r = (130) (648, 811) – (9,763)(8,976)<br />130647,963-(9,763)2[130641,890-(8,976)2]<br />r =84,345,430 – 87,632,688<br />130647,963-(9,763)2[130641,890-(8,976)2]<br />r =- 3, 287, 258<br />84,235,190-95,361,169[83,445,700-80,568,576]<br />r =- 3, 287, 258<br />- 11, 125,979[2,877,124]<br />r =- 3, 287, 258<br />- 11, 125,979[2,877,124]<br />r =- 3, 287, 258<br />- 32,010, 212, 200,000<br />r =- 3, 287, 258<br />- 5, 567, 810. 64<br />r =0.59 (Moderate Correlation)<br />2.2.2. Computation of Spearman – Brown Prophecy Formula<br />Given:<br />roe = 0.59<br />Formula:<br /> rtt = 2roe <br /> 1+roe<br />Solution:<br />rtt = 2 (0.59)<br /> 1 + 0.59<br />rtt = 1.18<br /> 1.59<br />rtt = 0.74<br />2.2.3. Computation of Pearson r for the Validity of AFIS (X-variable) to SRA (Y-variable)<br />Given:<br />N = 130∑Y = 4,389<br />∑X = 17, 793∑Y2 = 154, 097<br />∑X2 = 2, 551, 431∑XY = 627, 384<br />Formula:<br />Solution:<br />r = (130) (627,384) – (17,793)(4,389)<br />1302,554,431-(17,793)2[130154,097-(4,389)2]<br />r =81,559,920 – 78,093,477<br />332,076,030- (316,590,849)[20,032,610- (19,263,321)]<br />r =3,466,443<br />15,485,181[769,289]<br />r =3,466,443<br /> 11,912,579,410,000<br />r =3,466,443<br /> 3,451,460.47<br />r =1.00 (Perfect Correlation)<br />2.4. Item Analysis Summary<br />2.5. Final Table of Specification (After Item Analysis)<br />2.6. Test Reliability<br />2.6.1. Split – Half Method<br />COMPUTATION:<br />Methodology<br />Method of Collecting Data<br />Instrument Used<br />The test developers used the multiple-choices questionnaire method. The questionnaire is a research instrument consisting of a series of questions and other prompts for the purpose of gathering information from respondents.<br />Statistical Treatment<br /><ul><li>References:
Murphy, Kevin R. and Charles O. Davidshofer (1998). Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications. Fourth Edition. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, Inc.</li></ul>Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services ( May, 2005). Technical Assistance Paper (TAP). 310 Blount Street, Suite 215 Tallahassee, Florida, USA.<br /><ul><li>Branoff, Theodore J. (1999). Spatial Visualization Measurement: A Modification</li></ul>of the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test - Visualization of Rotations. Engineering Graphics Design Journal Vol. 64, No.2. North Carolina University, USA<br /><ul><li>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED117959&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED117959 , http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED117959.pdf
Birion, Juan C. and De Jose, Elmer G (2000). Glossary of Statistical Terms for Statisticians, Researchers, and Beginners. Second Edition. Rex Printing Company, Inc.