Assessing Students with Learning Problems

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Assessing Students with Learning Problems

Bennie earned a stanine of 3 on an intelligence test. To what standard score (on an IQ scale) and percentile score would that stanine correspond?

A stanine of 3 represents one of the lowest scores at the scale of 9 that is below average. This test score can be discussed as corresponding to the standard score of 82-88 on an IQ scale where the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is expected to be 15 points.

While referring to the percentile score, it is important to state that a stanine of 3 corresponds to 11-22 because the percentiles are expected to be divided into 9 parts to reflect stanines.

Arnie Miller has only one leg. His teacher feels that he should not be tested in reading because there is no reading test which demonstrates the inclusion of one-legged children in the normative group. To what extent is the teachers conclusion justified?

The teachers conclusion is only partially justified under certain circumstances. These circumstances include situations when Arnie Millers physical disability prevents the boy from completing the reading test normally to demonstrate his progress in reading. In this case, the influential factors can include the pain, stress, additional problems with moving and coordination.

These factors should be taken into consideration while proposing the test. However, Arnies physical disability usually cannot prevent the boy from completing the test that assesses his cognitive abilities and reading skills effectively if the requirements to the specific environment for the children with physical disabilities are followed or met.

A test designer compared the results of her newly designed IQ test with those achieved by students taking the WISC IV. What was she trying to demonstrate? How successful has she been if she achieves a correlation of.48?

While comparing the results of two tests, including an IO test and the WISC IV, the designer of a new IQ test was inclined to demonstrate the construct or content validity of her newly developed test.

Having focused on her results, it is important to state that if there is a correlation of.48, this correlation can be discussed as moderate and not appropriate to state that the new test is valid. The reason is that valid tests usually have the higher correlation (from.70), thus, this new developed IQ tests needs improvement to become valid.

How would you explain the concept of SEM to a classroom teacher who does not have an extensive background in tests and measurements? Is an SEM of 3 on a test better or worse than an SEM of 6?

Standard Error of Measurement or SEM can be discussed as the specific amount of errors that can be expected during the completion of a test. If the amount of errors is low, the test can be discussed as reliable. Researchers and practitioners use SEM in order to examine reliability of a test because SEM represents a range of projected errors. In this case, it is possible to state how many errors can be expected while using the certain test.

Thus, SEM of 3 and SEM of 6 represent the range that is typical for different tests. If the observed range is narrow, the reliability of the test can be discussed as high.

From this point, SEM of 3 on a test is better than SEM of 6 because the narrower range demonstrates the lower possibility of errors and higher reliability. Therefore, if the practitioner uses the test with SEM of 3, it is possible to expect more reliable results than those ones associated with using the test where SEM is of 6.

Louie Looksharp has developed a new observation instrument that he wants to market as a tool for identifying students with attentional problems. He tried out his checklist by using it to observe little Joey Jumpup at the same time as his colleague Latesha did, also using his checklist. What was Louie trying to demonstrate?

While using the same checklist for observation, the researchers and practitioners can receive the opportunity to compare the results and check the reliability and accuracy of the instrument for gathering the effective data and identifying the problems with attention in students.

In this context, focusing on the simultaneous use of checklists, Louie was intended to demonstrate that his checklist could be properly used by different researchers in order to present the same data regarding the same child. This fact is important in order to state the reliability of the developed instrument for observation.

Click Here To Order Now!