Norm-Referenced Interpretation In Sports

It is made up of four major parts: standards for particular applications, technical standards for test construction and evaluation, professional standards for test use, and standards for administrative procedures. A test that is technically adequate meets the criteria for validity, reliability, and norms. Validity is “the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences” that can be made from the test results. (American Psychological Association 9) Validity is the degree to which a test measures what it is intended to measure. Reliability is the extent to which the test results are dependable and consistent. Unrelated to the purpose of the test, errors in measurement can be viewed through inconsistencies in the performance, motivation, or interests of students being tested. Norms can be shown in age or grade equivalence, standard scores, and percentiles. They are generally shown in charts showing the performance groups of students who have taken the test. Norms show the comparison of the performance of new groups of test takers with the samples of students on whom the test was standardized. Goodwin and Driscoll (59-60) note that standardized tests have the following qualities: They provide a “systematic procedure for describing behaviors, whether in terms of numbers or categories.” They have an established format and set materials. Also, they present the same tasks and

A majority of the time, the tests are scored by computers or blind reviewers, meaning there is no relation to the student and grader.

Key word “whether”.This is a two-tailed hypothesis test. Researcher wants to know “whether” the groups being compared differ, but does not predict the direction of the difference.

The null hypothesis is defined by Frick (1996) as a statistical calculation constructed in such a way that “there is no difference between two variables” and assuming that the null is always true, then a p-value is calculated which is predictably defined as the probability of obtaining a pattern of results that are statistically insignificant and to indicate if a relationship between two variables exists or not (Argyrous 2011). However, the calculation of NHST

The results recorded from trial three deviated from the trend shown in the first two

Analysis of Data: Our data did not support our hypothesis, and though that does not necessarily correlate to decreased importance of data, ours could have had several sources of error. The primary source of error would be human,

Criterion-referenced scores focus attention on mastery goals and, by showing improvement over time, should enhance students’ self-value for learning classroom subject matter. In most instances criterion-referenced scores communicate what we and our students most need to know; whether instructional goals and content area standards are being achieved. Also norm-referenced scores enable us to compare our own students’ performance and performance of others broken down by age and grade. A norm-referenced score tells us little about what a student’s specifically knows and can do. Norm-referenced scores may be appropriate if we truly need to know how students have performed relative to one another. We shouldn’t use norm-referenced scores for teacher-developed assessments on a regular basis, such scores create a competitive

They are used to measure how well students are doing in rank to one another. Before we can begin testing and ranking of the students we need to determine a normative sample. Simply meaning that a group of students already needed to have taken the test so we can determine the scores of the new test. When we use Norm-Referenced test it also refers to using percentile ranges. For example if you were tested and received a fifty-two, according to a Norm-Referenced test that means you did better than fifty-two percent of the students have taken the test already. According to research done it is proven that, “Knowing student rank can be useful in deciding whether students may need some remedial assistance in a subject area or should be included in a gifted and talented program” (Norm - Referenced Testing" Research Starters). Essentially meaning that when we are able to give students Norm-Referenced test we are able to see where students are in ranked of the “norm” group and allows us to put students in classes where they can be pushed to their potential or in a class where they can receive extra help in which they may need. When test results are calculated the usual norm of a test is either based on age or grade normatives.

When conducting this experiment, the two types of errors type 1 and type 2 could have occurred throughout the whole thing. For example, type 1 error could have occurred if my p-value was greater than alpha, and I falsely rejected my null hypotheses because I thought it was less than alpha, but if I don’t reject the null hypotheses when it is lower than alpha I would have made a type 2 error. If both of these errors occurred during the experiment than the whole entire project would be wrong and the reader would have a hard time understanding what is going on throughout the

In table 1, the most prominent statistical conclusion was failure to reject the null hypothesis, that the variability of abiotic factors (pH and dissolved oxygen)

by testing for pre-knowledge. Assessment techniques are usually either norm referenced or criterion referenced. Norm referenced assesses an individual's performance in relation to the norms established by a peer group. Criterion referenced occurs when a student is assessed on his or her ability to meet a required level of skill or competence. Computer Assisted Assessment is usually criterion referenced. Well-written computer assisted testing is more likely to be objective testing: testing that can be marked objectively and thus offer high reliability. The benefit is that the tests can be marked quickly and easily, and adapted to meet a wide range of learning outcomes. Tests have the potentials to incorporate a wide range of media, to link online assessments to feedback, to incorporate hints into test questions, to assign other learning activities based on the test result, to make randomized selection can be made from large question banks, to be administrated easily and allowing better test

of what is meant). We leverage such differences to extend previous research across two studies.

For a long time, and at times a detriment to us as psychological scientists, we have looked at evidence as a dichotomous significance decision. In other words, significance is viewed as anti-null or pro-null depending on the value of p. A p value less than .05 can mean success, yet a p value greater than .05 can mean failure, especially when we consider publications typically disregard non-significant results for publication. While there are very valid reasons for using that key number of .05 to determine significance, we could use .06 just as well. This is evident in other scientific fields. When looking at significant and non-significant differences, values can vary between extremes due to no sharp line between the differences.

Non-referenced assessment allows each individual to compare his or her result/score to others examinees, nationally. Also, it is giving in a same manner and condition to all.

Our team then made our decision that because the test statistic of 18.51 is far greater then that of the Chi-square value at v = 4,  = .05 in Appendix E, we must reject the null hypothesis that all c populations are the same (2007). These results can be viewed in Appendix D, where at the significance level of .05, it shows the Chi-square of 25.75, which is still far above the level for the team to reject the null hypothesis that all c population medians are the same. The team continues the research by giving details to the nonparametric test we used and why we opted to use it.