2. Dr. Jeffrey Oescher 27 January 2014

3. Technical Issues  Two technical issues  Validity  Reliability

4. Technical Issues  Validity – the extent to which inferences made on the basis of scores from an instrument are appropriate, meaningful, and useful  Characteristics  Refers to the interpretation of the results  Is a matter of degree  Is situation specific  Is a unitary concept  Involves an overall judgment

5. Data Collection – Technical Issues  Validity evidence  Content  Face  Content  Construct  Criterion-related  Predictive  Concurrent  Situationally specific

6. Data Collection – Technical Issues  Reliability  The extent to which scores are free from error  Error is measured by consistency  Two perspectives  Test – the reliability of a test  Agreement – the reliability of an observation

7. Data Collection – Technical Issues  Test reliability evidence  Stability  Also known as test-retest  Measured on a scale of 0 to1  Equivalence  Also known as parallel forms  Measured on a scale of 0 to 1  Internal consistency  Split half  KR 20  KR 21  Cronbach alpha  All measured on a scale from 0 to 1

8. Data Collection – Technical Issues  Score reliability evidence  Standard error of measurement or SEM  A statistic that allows one to ascertain the probability that a student’s score falls within a given range of scores  Usually reported as the student’s score and ‘SEM = +/- 2.25’  You can add and subtract one (1) SEM to a student’s score and be confident that their score fall within that range of scores 68% of the time  You can add and subtract two (2) SEM to a students score and be confident that their score falls with that range of scores 99% of the time  Agreement reliability evidence  Percentage of agreement between observers  More commonly known as inter-rater reliability  Ranges on a scale from 0 to 1

9. Score Interpretation  Two types of interpretations: criterion-referenced and norm- referenced  Criterion-referenced  You need to know the underlying scale (e.g., 0-100, 1-5, etc.) upon which the scores are based  The interpretation of the test score is made relative to this underlying scale  The scores indicted the students mastered about three-fourths of the objectives  The scores are interpreted relative to what the students know  The scores easily communicate some level of performance (e.g., good, bad, moderate, etc.)

10. Score Interpretation  Norm-referenced  You need to know the reference group (i.e., norming sample) against which the scores are being compared  The interpretation of test scores is made in relation to the scores of students in the norming group  John’s score put him in the 85 th percentile  John’s score indicates he performed better than 85% of the students in the norming group  John’s score doesn’t tell us anything about what John knows in terms of content

11. Score Interpretation  A note of caution  Which of the following represents a criterion-referenced and norm-referenced interpretation?  The scores for the experimental group were significantly higher than those for the control group.  The scores for the experimental group indicated mastery of about 95% of the objectives, while those scores for the control group indicated only 65% mastery.  These are common examples from the literature you will be reading  Be careful about the first interpretation, as it only tells us which group is better. It does not tell us how well either group performed.