China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Tests
Published in Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, Keith Morrison, Research Methods in Education, 2017
Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, Keith Morrison
A criterion-referenced test does not compare student with student but, rather, requires the student to fulfil a given set of criteria, a predefined and absolute standard or outcome (Cunningham, 1998), for example, in terms of knowledge or skills. It tests what a student can and cannot do, and what he/she knows and does not know, regardless of what any other students can and cannot do. For example, a driving test is usually criterion-referenced since to pass it requires the ability to meet certain test items – reversing round a corner, undertaking an emergency stop etc. – regardless of how many other people have or have not passed the driving test. Similarly, many tests of playing a musical instrument require specified performances, for example, the ability to play a particular scale or arpeggio, the ability to play a Bach fugue without hesitation or technical error. If the student meets the criteria, then he or she passes the examination.
Augmentative and alternative communication in the Philippines: a survey of speech-language pathologist competence, training, and practice
Published in Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2019
Ellyn Cassey K. Chua, Edward James R. Gorgon
The majority of the AAC practitioners spent 0–3 h per week on activities related to AAC service provision. Most of their time was spent on assessing people who rely on AAC (n = 102, 94% spent 0–3 h), followed by addressing maintenance issues (n = 100, 93%), creating or modifying systems (n = 92, 85%), providing intervention to people who rely on AAC (n = 77, 71%), and following-up on families regarding everyday use of AAC (n = 63, 58%). In terms of assessment areas addressed, almost all AAC practitioners routinely examined communication methods and cognitive-linguistic skills, but around 10–20% did not routinely consider communication partners and environments, or sensory and motor skills (see Table 4). As for assessment procedures used, they mostly used informal methods, with only 25–45% of them using standardized and criterion-referenced tests (see Table 4).
Screening for learning disabilities in Oman: confirmatory factor analysis of the Arabic version of the learning disabilities diagnostic inventory
Published in International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 2021
Mahmoud Mohamed Emam, Rashid Almehrizi, Ehab Omara, Ali Mahdi Kazem
The purpose of this study was to provide evidence on the construct validity of the Arabic version of the LDDI for use in screening for young children with LD in an Arab context. LDDI structure was validated on a national, broad, geographically representative Omani sample. A number of limitations, however, suggest avenues for future research on the LDDI in Oman and the Arab region. As with all new assessment instruments, more research needs to be conducted on the psychometric properties of the LDDI in other Arabic contexts and cross cultural examination of its factor structure and invariance across cultures should be investigated. Additionally, future studies in the Arab region should target testing the predictive and criterion validity of the LDDI as well as investigating its sensitivity and specificity indexes. The LDDI should be used with other outcome measures including formative assessments such as curriculum based measurements, norm-referenced tests although these are not available in Oman, and criterion-referenced tests such as teacher made tests or tests developed and used by the Ministry of Education in Oman to assess the academic skills of students in grades 1–4. Such studies would provide strong evidence for its clinical and educational uses in Oman as well as in the Arab region. Furthermore, other LD rating scales should be validated and compared with the LDDI on similar Omani samples as well as on samples from other Arab countries. Examples include Performance Screening Guides (PSG; Elliott and Gresham 2007), and Learning Disability Evaluation Scales (LDES-R2; McCarney and Arthaud 2007). Also, a possible limitation of the current study is that we focused on a non-clinical sample. Future studies could include both clinical and non-clinical samples.