Research And Investigation Into Differential Validity And Differential Prediction

According to the technical manual, Test Validity can be defined as the degree to which empirical evidence and theory support the use and interpretation of the test (Schrank & McGrew, 2001). The main constructs and measures attained by the WJ III are resultant from the Cattell Horn Carrol theory of the cognitive abilities (CHC theory). Content validity, which is how well a test measures the behaviors it was intended to measure, was accompanied through requirement of a master test and cluster-content revision blueprint. Each cluster of the Woodcock- Johnson COG battery was created to heighted the range of validity measurement (Schrank & McGrew, 2001). This was done by providing two qualitatively separate narrow abilities included in the broad ability, as defined by CHC theory. The WJ III ACH was also knowledgeable by CHC theory. In order to strengthen

The formulas were developed by Kuder and Richardson in 1937 to calculate the reliability/precision of a test by using a single form and a single test administration, without arbitrarily dividing the test into halves” (Drummond, Sheris, and Jones, 2016, p.100). When Jonathan took the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, he scored a 90 the first time he took this test, and a 94 the second time. This test measures a client’s reasoning ability and abstract thinking. While the test does not measure one’s ability to learn, it does give us a picture of how well he will do, academically. His scores fall within the average, meaning Jonathan can function intellectually. Even with the slight increase, he still falls in the average category, which is consistent with the reliability of the test. In order for a person to increase their IQ dramatically, he or she has to prepare by increasing their reading and consistent exposure to intellectual activities. The scores that Jonathan received on a differential aptitude test, especially a 49% in abstract reasoning and a 63% in mechanical reasoning, deemed to be extremely reliable and valid, as it relates to what Jonathan has verbalized about his interest. There is, indeed a correlation in these scores and his day to day performance in school, and his career

An associate of the personnel department proposes that Frank should continue to use the Wonderlic but that the test scores should be interpreted by the racial/ethnic classification of the test taker. For example, raw scores on the Wonderlic would be converted to percentages within ethnic classification. With such a procedure, African Americans taking the test who receive the exact raw score as whites would receive a higher percentage score on the exam because of the “within-ethnic” interpretation. He argues that the procedure would enable Frank to continue using a valid and useful test while avoiding adverse impact. (Mr. Goebel would have advanced to the interview with this approach.) Take a position on this

Standardized tests can also be biased or unfair because questions on these tests necessitate understanding and abilities that typically children from advantaged families have (Kohn, A, 2000). Children who live in poorer communities have a

This study examined administration and scoring errors made by graduate students when administering the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG). In the past studies have been conducted on graduate student errors made on other assessment of cognitive abilities, such as the Wechsler Scales. This study's findings were similar to previous studies.

Labeling bias exists when a test claims to measure one thing but actually measures something else. Tests that claim to assess such traits as “aptitude” or “intelligence” imply that they are measuring something innate, given that many people assume that these traits are genetic. However, Jencks notes that “almost all psychologists now agree that while an individual’s score on an intelligence or aptitude test depends partly on his or her genetic makeup, it also reflects a multitude of environmental influences” (p. 56). Thus, such tests are racially biased estimates of the innate traits that most laypeople think these tests are purporting to evaluate. Fortunately, this bias can be eliminated by simply changing the names of what these tests claim to measure.

Our state and federal legislatures, executive bodies, and our courts have been involved in many aspects of testing assessment. Courts have been grappling with the role of diversity in criteria for admission to colleges, universities, and professional schools (Cohen, 2013).

Curriculum-based tests shouldn’t determine the intelligence and knowledge of people but instead, it is

In this paper, I will present my findings about the two testing (Cognitive Ability Test

Additionally, participants were reminded that following the test they would receive feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. For participants who were assigned to the non-diagnostic-only and non-diagnostic-challenge condition, the purpose of the study did not reflect a reference to verbal ability (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Both non-diagnostic conditions were told that the true purpose of the study was to assess psychological factors related to verbal problem solving tasks (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Participant’s performance was measured using a modified GRE examination, which consisted to 30 verbal items (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Moreover, the total number of correct answers on the examination were analyzed. Following the examination, all participants were asked to complete an 18 item self-report measure of their thoughts related to personal worth and academic competence (Steele & Aronson, 1995). The data showed that African American participants underperformed Caucasian participants during the diagnostic test, but not the non-diagnostic test, showing that the effects of stereotype threat on performance were greater for African Americans (Steele & Aronson,

Standardized, merit-based assessment also disadvantages minority and low socioeconomic status students because of its presentation as a measure of ability. The performance of both black and low socioeconomic status students depends upon the context in which the test is administered. If tests are presented as measures of ability, these students tend to perform lower than their more advantaged peers; if tests are presented as general non-diagnostic studies, they perform equally. As one of over 100 examples, when administered questions from the Graduate Record Examination under normal testing circumstances, low socioeconomic status students answered an average of 8.90 correctly, compared with 12.30 for their high socioeconomic status peers. When presented as a general laboratory study, the scores were 11.46 and 10.89, respectively (Croizet, 2008). Such differences arise due to social anxiety and stereotype threat, the fear of confirming the supposed inferiority of a social group (Croizet, 2008).

The current uproar over standardized testing is being battled by cultural minorities who demand equality. “Cultural bias” refers to the idea that the differences between scores of racial and ethnic groups are caused by a bias towards the “American-born, English-speaking majority” of the US population. From the simple IQ test to the SAT, standardized testing has become an unfair predictor and artificial decision maker for this country’s minority, especially those newly immigrated. Economic and cultural biases leave for little opportunity for these examinees to perform well, partially because of the failure of the government to prepare and assimilate minority students.

“Blacks still score below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests” (Jencks and Phillips). The belief that intelligence and aptitude are innate seems to be especially important in discussions of racial differences (Jencks and Phillips 6). White Americans score closer on IQ tests to other white populations across the globe than to the worldwide black average (Saletan 1). An important question that may come to mind is whether intelligence tests biased. Intelligence tests are likely to be culturally biased when a standardized test reflects what is learned through experience in a culture that does not regard to another race as highly (Young). For instance, if a standardized test result represented an ingroup preference exclusively than it may only measure a specific part of intelligence; for example the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, WAIS, is more verbal while the Raven's Progressive Matrices, RPM, is more visual (Young). This may cause a majority of individuals with autism to do better on the RPM due to autistic students connecting with images rather than words. Young has stated that intelligence tests that only focus on certain neurological criterias and are not well indicators of intelligence due to it not equally indicating all types of intellect. Yet a majority of psychologists now agree that intelligence tests measure developed

In the society of today, there are various educators who believe in assessment as proper method to measure the performance of a child in school as well as the overall achievement of a specific school system. The assessment may be presented in the form of verbal, written, or multiple choice, and it usually pertains to certain academic subjects in the school curriculum. Recently, many educators began to issue standardized tests to measure the intelligence of a common student body. (Rudner, 1989) These standardized tests were initially created to reveal the success in institutional school programs, and exhibit the abilities of students today. The standardized tests can reveal the strengths and weaknesses

581-586, 2011). This addition of subtest and composite scores allows for an examination of strengths and weaknesses in individuals and when used in combination with other assessment instruments, like the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Third Edition (WIAT-III), an individuals general cognitive ability as calculated by the WAIS-IV can be compared to additional more specific areas of functioning to distinguish unforeseen patterns of strengths or deficits (Climie & Rostad, pp. 581-586,