This document is a presentation on test scores and statistics given by John O. Willis at Rivier University. It discusses the various units that are used to measure and report intelligence and achievement test results, including standard scores, percentile ranks, z-scores, T-scores, and stanines. It explains that test authors create different score types to compare performance on different tests using a common scale and to place scores on a normal distribution curve.
the presentation is about the encoding, capacity, retention duration, forgetting and retrieval of information in long term memory. it also introduce several studies done
MMPI is a personality inventory used in the assessment of personality. It is also used as a psychometric test as well as a diagnostic tool by clinical psychologists and counselors. Developed by Hathway & McKinley in the year 1943. It is the second most widely used personality inventory.
Sentence completion tests are a class of semi-structured projective techniques.
Sentence completion tests typically provide respondents with beginnings of sentences, referred to as "stems", and respondents then complete the sentences in ways that are meaningful to them.
The responses are believed to provide indications of
Attitudes,
Beliefs,
Motivations, or other
Mental states.
Therefore, sentence completion technique, with such advantage, promotes the respondents to disclose their concealed feelings.
There is debate over whether or not sentence completion tests elicit responses from conscious thought rather than unconscious states.
This debate would affect its categorizing as projective tests
the presentation is about the encoding, capacity, retention duration, forgetting and retrieval of information in long term memory. it also introduce several studies done
MMPI is a personality inventory used in the assessment of personality. It is also used as a psychometric test as well as a diagnostic tool by clinical psychologists and counselors. Developed by Hathway & McKinley in the year 1943. It is the second most widely used personality inventory.
Sentence completion tests are a class of semi-structured projective techniques.
Sentence completion tests typically provide respondents with beginnings of sentences, referred to as "stems", and respondents then complete the sentences in ways that are meaningful to them.
The responses are believed to provide indications of
Attitudes,
Beliefs,
Motivations, or other
Mental states.
Therefore, sentence completion technique, with such advantage, promotes the respondents to disclose their concealed feelings.
There is debate over whether or not sentence completion tests elicit responses from conscious thought rather than unconscious states.
This debate would affect its categorizing as projective tests
F ProjHOSPITAL INPATIENT P & L20162017Variance Variance Per DC 20.docxmecklenburgstrelitzh
F ProjHOSPITAL INPATIENT P & L20162017Variance Variance %Per DC 2016Per DC 2017Total Number of Beds149149Maximum Occupancy55,74554,561Total Patient Days37,25037,926Actual Occupancy %ALOSDischarges by PayerMedicare/Medicaid4,9224,989Commercial Ins5,2415,099Private Pay/Bad Debt1,2801,162Total DischargesREVENUEGross Patient Revenue$ 161,325,872$ 135,365,715Contract Allowances, Uncollectables$ (84,696,083)$ (65,680,261) Net Patient RevenueMisc Income$ 378,530$ 303,233 NET REVENUEPatient Care Expenses Salaries $ 18,387,223$ 18,244,610Benefits $ 4,140,146$ 4,211,157Contract Labor $ 1,724,507$ 1,820,377Physician Contract Services$ 6,439,165$ 6,335,188Lab Services $ 1,589,648$ 1,575,808Radiology Services$ 2,336,043$ 2,343,920Rehabilitation Services$ 655,766$ 679,444General Supplies $ 653,941$ 689,766Medical Supplies $ 1,006,220$ 1,029,151Cost of Food $ 576,245$ 612,890Patient Transportation $ 35,324$ 36,031Total Patient Care ExpensesGeneral and Administrative ExpensesSalaries$ 8,450,134$ 8,629,126Benefits$ 2,001,199$ 1,993,174Contract Labor$ 157,925$ 161,015Purchased Services $ 1,285,925$ 1,355,602Medical Director $ 162,909$ 167,207Telephone$ 586,985$ 596,466Meals & Entertainment $ 254,517$ 289,185Travel$ 126,951$ 141,561General Supplies $ 332,069$ 337,874Postage$ 53,760$ 57,383Building Expense$ 2,685,376$ 2,950,379Equipment Rents $ 363,302$ 429,694Repairs and Maintenance $ 337,711$ 366,311Insurance$ 644,384$ 715,563Utilities $ 504,959$ 556,226Total General and Administrative ExpensesNet Operating Expenses NET PROFIT (LOSS) before Interest, Taxes and Depreciation (EBITDA)NET PROFIT (LOSS) %2017CASH FLOW 2016RELEVANT FINANCIAL RATIOS 2016What is your average Daily Revenue?Return on Assets (ROA)Return on Assets (ROA)Assume your AR Days are 55, what is your Total AR?Return on Equity (ROE)Return on Equity (ROE)What is your Average Daily Expense?Current RatioCurrent RatioAssume your AP Days are 35, what is your total AP?Debt RatioDebt RatioBALANCE SHEET 2016ASSETS Cash and EquivalentsAssume 45 days of ExpensesAssume 45 days of Expenses Accounts Receivable$ - 0$ - 0 Inventory All SuppliesAssume 55 days of suppliesAssume 55 days of suppliesTotal Current AssetsFixed Assets:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bldg and Equipment$ 14,700,779$14,700,779Total AssetsLIABILITIES AND EQUITYCurrent Liabilitiesxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Accounts Payable$ - 0$0Long Term Debtxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bldg and Equipment$ 8,149,152$8,149,152Total LiabilitiesEquityTotal Liabilities and EquityITEMSPOINT VALUEOccupany Calcs2Hospital Cols B & C3Variance (2014-2013) $ and %2PPD 2013 - 20142Cash flow 20142Balance Sheet Calculations5Relevant Financial Ratios4Sub-Total20
35879 Topic: Discussion6
Number of Pages: 1 (Double Spaced)
Number of sources: 1
Writing Style: APA
Type of document: Essay
Academic Level:Master
.
Ratio indicies in football injury and performance prediction researchGregAtki
Some suggested explorations on ratio indicies that might be used as exposures for prediction of injury and performance outcomes in football (Soccer) research
QuestionWhich of the following data sets is most likel.docxcatheryncouper
Question
Which of the following data sets is most likely to be normally distributed? For other choices, explain why you believe they would not follow a normal distribution.
The hand span (measured from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the extended 5th finger) of a random sample of high school seniors.
The annual salaries of all employees of a large shipping company
The annual salaries of a random sample of 50 CEOs of major companies (25 men and 25 women)
The dates of 100 pennies taken from a cash drawer in a convenience store
Question
Assume than the mean weight of 1 year old girls in the US is normally distributed with a mean value of 9.5 kg and standard deviation of 1.1. Without using a calculator (use the empirical rule 68 %, 95 %, 99%), estimate the percentage of 1 year old girls in the US that meet the following conditions. Draw a sketch and shade the proper region for each problem…
Less than 8.1 kg
Between 7.3 and 11.7 kg.
More than 12.8 kg.
Question
The grades on a marketing research course midterm are normally distributed with a mean (81) and standard deviation (6.3) . Calculate the z score for each of the following exam grades. Draw and label a sketch for each example.
65
83
93
100
Question
The grades on a marketing research course midterm are normally distributed with a mean (81) and standard deviation (6.3) . Calculate the z score for each of the following exam grades. Draw and label a sketch for each example.
65
83
93
100
Question…
What is the relative frequency of observations below 1.18? That is, find the relative frequency of the event Z < 1.18.
z .00 .01 ... .08 .09
0.0 .5000 .5040 ... .5319 .5359
0.1 .5398 .5438 ... .5714 .5753
... ... ... ... ... ...
1.0 .8413 .8438 ... .8599 .8621
1.1 .8643 .8665 ... .8810 8830
1.2 .8849 .8869 ... .8997 .9015
... ... ... ... ... ...
Question
Find the value z such that the event Z > z has relative frequency 0.80.
Question
For borrowers with good credits the mean debt for revolving and installment accounts is $ 15, 015. Assume the standard deviation is $3,540 and that debt amounts are normally distributed.
What is the probability that the debt for a borrower with good credit is more than $ 18,000.
Question
The average stock price for companies making up the S&P 500 is $30, and the standard deviation is $ 8.20. Assume the stock prices are normally distributed.
How high does a stock price have to be to put a company in the top 10 % … ?
Question
The scores on a statewide geometry exam were normally distributed with μ=72 and σ=8. What fraction of test-takers had a grade between 70 and 72 on the exam? Use the cumulative z-table provided below.
z. 00 .01 .02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07 .08 .09
0.00. 50000 .50400 .50800 .51200 .51600 .51990 .52390 .52790 .53190 .5359
0.10. 53980 .54380 .54780 .55170 .55570 .55960 .56360 .56750 .57140 .5753
0.20. 57930 .58320 .58710 .59100 .59480 .59870 .60260 .60640 .61 ...
INFERENTIAL STATISTICS: AN INTRODUCTIONJohn Labrador
For instance, we use inferential statistics to try to infer from the sample data what the population might think. Or, we use inferential statistics to make judgments of the probability that an observed difference between groups is a dependable one or one that might have happened by chance in this study.
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) Part E: Crossing the R...Kevin McGrew
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) is a series of slide modules. This is the fifth (Part E) in the series. It is brief...only 11 slides. The modules will serve as supplemental materials to "The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants" (McGrew, in press, 2021 - in a forthcoming special issue on motivation in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology)
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM): Part D: The volition ...Kevin McGrew
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) is a series of slide modules. This is the fourth (Part D) in the series. The modules will serve as supplemental materials to "The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants" (McGrew, in press, 2021 - in a forthcoming special issue on motivation in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology)
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) Part C: The motivation...Kevin McGrew
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) is a series of slide modules. This is the third (Part C) in the series. The modules will serve as supplemental materials to "The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants" (McGrew, in press, 2021 - in a forthcoming special issue on motivation in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology)
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM): Part B - An overview ...Kevin McGrew
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) is a series of slide modules. This is the second (Part B) in the series. The modules will serve as supplemental materials to "The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants" (McGrew, in press, 2021 - in a forthcoming special issue on motivation in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology)
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM): Part A Introduction o...Kevin McGrew
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) is a series of slide modules. This is the first (Part A) in the series. The modules will serve as supplemental materials to "The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants" (McGrew, in press, 2021 - in a forthcoming special issue on motivation in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology)
The WJ IV Cognitive GIA in iintellectual disability (ID) assessmentKevin McGrew
This is a brief presentation that explains why the WJ IV (and WJ III) GIA IQ score is an appropriate and valid indicator of general intelligence that can be used in possible intellectual disability (ID) determinations
The Evolution of the Cattell-Horn-Carrol (CHC) Theory of Intelligence: Schne...Kevin McGrew
This presentation is based on Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (in press). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. This presentation includes a portion of key material to be published in a forthcoming CHC update/revision chapter-->In D. P. Flanagan & Erin M .McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (4thed.,) New York: Guilford Press.
This is only a small amount of the chapter. Also, I have inserted some new material related to test interpretation that is not included in the to-be-published chapter. The tentative date for publication of the Flanagan book is spring 2018.
Beyond cognitive abilities: An integrative model of learning-related persona...Kevin McGrew
For centuries educational psychologists have highlighted the importance of "non-cognitive" variables in school learning. The presentation is a "big picture" overview of how cognitive abilities and non-cognitive factors can be integrated into an over-arching conceptual framework. The presentation also illustrates how the big picture framework can be used to conceptualize a number of contemporary "buzz word" initiatives related to building 21st century educationally important skills (social-emotional learning, critical thinking, creativity, complex problem solving, etc.)
What about executive functions and CHC theory: New research for discussionKevin McGrew
This module contains a subset of slides that were only briefly touched on as part of a larger "Beyond CHC" presentation at the Australian Psychological Society (APS) 2016 Annual Congress. Time was limited. Thus, the complete subset of slides are presented here for FYI and discussion purposes.
CHC model of inteligence revised (v2.4). Has Glr been incorrectly conceptual...Kevin McGrew
This presentation contains a historical overview of the derivation of the Glr ability domain in contemporary CHC theory. It then presents new data, as well as historical conclusions of the CHC masters, that makes a strong case for replacing the stratum II broad ability domain of Glr with two separate broad ability domains of Gl (learning efficiency) and Gr (retrieval fluency). How to obtain WJ IV scores for these two broad abilities is presented, as well as other possible Gl and Gr tests indicators from the CHC cross-battery literature.
"intelligent" intelligence testing: Why do some individuals obtain markedly ...Kevin McGrew
This is the second in a series. Please view the first ("intelligent" intelligence testing: Evaluating wihtin CHC domain test score differences) to better appreciate this module
Data and theory-based hypotheses for evaluating differences between scores on the different WJ IV tests of Gwm
A presentation on deciding when the scores from two tests, which are from the same CHC domain (e.g., Gwm), and which may have the same narrow CHC classifications, are different enough to warrant clinical interpretation.
How to evaulate the unusualness (base rate) of WJ IV cluster or test score di...Kevin McGrew
The WJ IV provides two primary methods for comparing tests or cluster scores. One is based on a predictive model (the variation and comparison procedures) and the other allows comparisons of SEM confidence bands, which takes into account each measures reliability. A third method for comparing scores, one that takes into account the correlation between compared measures (ability cohesion model) is not provided, but is frequently used by assessment professionals. The three types of score comparison methods are described and new information, via a "rule of thumb" summary slide and nomograph, are provided to allow WJ IV users to evaluate scores via all three methods.
The WJ IV and Beyond CHC Theory: Kevin McGrew's NASP mini-skills workshopKevin McGrew
This presentation represents the slides Dr. Kevin McGrew presented at his WJ IV and Beyond CHC theory mini-skills workshop at the 2015 NASP convention in Orlando, Florida. The show includes more and newer slides than were presented at the live session.
The WJ IV Measurement of Auditory Processing (Ga)Kevin McGrew
The WJ IV Cognitive and Oral Language include new measures of auditory processing (Ga) that are much more cognitively complex auditory measures of intelligence. This short presentation provides an overview of the WJ IV Ga tests and presents evidence supporting the importance of Ga as a major component of human intelligence.
Overview of the WJ IV Cognitive Battery: GIA and CHC ClustersKevin McGrew
This slideshow provides an overview of the composition of the WJ IV Cognitive clusters. It outlines the design principles used to assign tests to the GIA and CHC clusters, and also presents summary statistics as per the primary design principles used in constructing the COG clusters.
CHC Theory Codebook 1: Cognitive definitionsKevin McGrew
A presentation of the most up-to-date CHC broad and narrow ability definitions as adapted from McGrew & Schneider (2012) and McGrew, LaForte and Schrank (2014). One of two. See CHC Codebook 2 for additional information
Slack (or Teams) Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Soluti...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on the notifications, alerts, and approval requests using Slack for Bonterra Impact Management. The solutions covered in this webinar can also be deployed for Microsoft Teams.
Interested in deploying notification automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
Search and Society: Reimagining Information Access for Radical FuturesBhaskar Mitra
The field of Information retrieval (IR) is currently undergoing a transformative shift, at least partly due to the emerging applications of generative AI to information access. In this talk, we will deliberate on the sociotechnical implications of generative AI for information access. We will argue that there is both a critical necessity and an exciting opportunity for the IR community to re-center our research agendas on societal needs while dismantling the artificial separation between the work on fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in IR and the rest of IR research. Instead of adopting a reactionary strategy of trying to mitigate potential social harms from emerging technologies, the community should aim to proactively set the research agenda for the kinds of systems we should build inspired by diverse explicitly stated sociotechnical imaginaries. The sociotechnical imaginaries that underpin the design and development of information access technologies needs to be explicitly articulated, and we need to develop theories of change in context of these diverse perspectives. Our guiding future imaginaries must be informed by other academic fields, such as democratic theory and critical theory, and should be co-developed with social science scholars, legal scholars, civil rights and social justice activists, and artists, among others.
Let's dive deeper into the world of ODC! Ricardo Alves (OutSystems) will join us to tell all about the new Data Fabric. After that, Sezen de Bruijn (OutSystems) will get into the details on how to best design a sturdy architecture within ODC.
Dev Dives: Train smarter, not harder – active learning and UiPath LLMs for do...UiPathCommunity
💥 Speed, accuracy, and scaling – discover the superpowers of GenAI in action with UiPath Document Understanding and Communications Mining™:
See how to accelerate model training and optimize model performance with active learning
Learn about the latest enhancements to out-of-the-box document processing – with little to no training required
Get an exclusive demo of the new family of UiPath LLMs – GenAI models specialized for processing different types of documents and messages
This is a hands-on session specifically designed for automation developers and AI enthusiasts seeking to enhance their knowledge in leveraging the latest intelligent document processing capabilities offered by UiPath.
Speakers:
👨🏫 Andras Palfi, Senior Product Manager, UiPath
👩🏫 Lenka Dulovicova, Product Program Manager, UiPath
JMeter webinar - integration with InfluxDB and GrafanaRTTS
Watch this recorded webinar about real-time monitoring of application performance. See how to integrate Apache JMeter, the open-source leader in performance testing, with InfluxDB, the open-source time-series database, and Grafana, the open-source analytics and visualization application.
In this webinar, we will review the benefits of leveraging InfluxDB and Grafana when executing load tests and demonstrate how these tools are used to visualize performance metrics.
Length: 30 minutes
Session Overview
-------------------------------------------
During this webinar, we will cover the following topics while demonstrating the integrations of JMeter, InfluxDB and Grafana:
- What out-of-the-box solutions are available for real-time monitoring JMeter tests?
- What are the benefits of integrating InfluxDB and Grafana into the load testing stack?
- Which features are provided by Grafana?
- Demonstration of InfluxDB and Grafana using a practice web application
To view the webinar recording, go to:
https://www.rttsweb.com/jmeter-integration-webinar
Connector Corner: Automate dynamic content and events by pushing a buttonDianaGray10
Here is something new! In our next Connector Corner webinar, we will demonstrate how you can use a single workflow to:
Create a campaign using Mailchimp with merge tags/fields
Send an interactive Slack channel message (using buttons)
Have the message received by managers and peers along with a test email for review
But there’s more:
In a second workflow supporting the same use case, you’ll see:
Your campaign sent to target colleagues for approval
If the “Approve” button is clicked, a Jira/Zendesk ticket is created for the marketing design team
But—if the “Reject” button is pushed, colleagues will be alerted via Slack message
Join us to learn more about this new, human-in-the-loop capability, brought to you by Integration Service connectors.
And...
Speakers:
Akshay Agnihotri, Product Manager
Charlie Greenberg, Host
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Neuro-symbolic is not enough, we need neuro-*semantic*Frank van Harmelen
Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI is on the rise. However, simply machine learning on just any symbolic structure is not sufficient to really harvest the gains of NeSy. These will only be gained when the symbolic structures have an actual semantics. I give an operational definition of semantics as “predictable inference”.
All of this illustrated with link prediction over knowledge graphs, but the argument is general.
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered QualityInflectra
In this insightful webinar, Inflectra explores how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming software development and testing. Discover how AI-powered tools are revolutionizing every stage of the software development lifecycle (SDLC), from design and prototyping to testing, deployment, and monitoring.
Learn about:
• The Future of Testing: How AI is shifting testing towards verification, analysis, and higher-level skills, while reducing repetitive tasks.
• Test Automation: How AI-powered test case generation, optimization, and self-healing tests are making testing more efficient and effective.
• Visual Testing: Explore the emerging capabilities of AI in visual testing and how it's set to revolutionize UI verification.
• Inflectra's AI Solutions: See demonstrations of Inflectra's cutting-edge AI tools like the ChatGPT plugin and Azure Open AI platform, designed to streamline your testing process.
Whether you're a developer, tester, or QA professional, this webinar will give you valuable insights into how AI is shaping the future of software delivery.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
PHP Frameworks: I want to break free (IPC Berlin 2024)Ralf Eggert
In this presentation, we examine the challenges and limitations of relying too heavily on PHP frameworks in web development. We discuss the history of PHP and its frameworks to understand how this dependence has evolved. The focus will be on providing concrete tips and strategies to reduce reliance on these frameworks, based on real-world examples and practical considerations. The goal is to equip developers with the skills and knowledge to create more flexible and future-proof web applications. We'll explore the importance of maintaining autonomy in a rapidly changing tech landscape and how to make informed decisions in PHP development.
This talk is aimed at encouraging a more independent approach to using PHP frameworks, moving towards a more flexible and future-proof approach to PHP development.
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
1. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15.
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. [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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
36. • 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
37. • 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
38. 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
39. [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
40. [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
41. 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
42. • 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
43. 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
44. 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
45. 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
46. 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
47. 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
48. 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
49. 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
50. • 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
51. 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
52. 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
53. “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
54. 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
55. 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
56. 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
57. “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
58. 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.
59. 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
60. 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.
61. 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
62. 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
63. 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
64. 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
65. 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
66. "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
67. “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
68. 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
69. 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
70. 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
73. 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
75. 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
76. 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)
77. 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
78. 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
79. 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