Relationships Among Simple Measures of Spelling and Performance on Standardized Achievement Tests.
Relationships Among Simple Measures of Spelling and Performance on Standardized Achievement Tests.
复制标题
简单的拼写测量与标准化成绩测试表现之间的关系。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1980
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Deno
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Deno
对拼写形成性测验成绩与标准化拼写成绩成绩之间的关系进行了三项同时效度研究。四个构成性测量和三个标准化测量的相关分析结果支持了听写单词表上的正确字母序列数和正确词数作为拼写成绩的指标的有效性。来自不同年级(2-6年级)和不同小组(学习资源计划与常规计划)的数据支持了假设的跨年级成绩发展趋势以及普通计划学生和学习成绩计划学生之间的成绩差异。其他分析表明，可以使用任何选词程序，口述列表可以展示一到三分钟，以获得有效的结果。讨论了这些结果对发展形成性评估系统的影响，教师可以持续使用该系统来监测拼写的增长和评估干预措施。第一部分形成性评价程序的同时效度：拼写介绍本研究是作为一个项目的一部分进行的，该项目的目的是开发形成性评价系统，供教师用来改进学习障碍的拼写服务计划。该研究项目所基于的主要假设是：(1)学习障碍服务的成功主要取决于这些服务在多大程度上改善了被服务学生的学业和社会行为目标；(2)教师可以通过系统地衡量学生在实现项目目标方面的进展，然后调整学生计划以改善这一进展，从而提高学习障碍服务的成功率；以及(3)教师目前可用于衡量学生进展和基于所测量的进展调整计划的技术要么不够充分，要么没有经过充分的测试。这里描述的研究项目的特定部分是为了回答在开发拼写形成性评估系统时提出的第一个也是关键的问题：什么学生的表现数据可以常规地、容易地获得，以有效地索引成绩？出现这个问题的原因是，出于几个充分的原因，通常用于评估成绩的商业准备的标准化拼写测试不能在形成性评估系统中常规使用，以监测成绩。首先，商业化生产的标准化考试太费时费力了。其次，对于形成性评估者所需的重复测量成绩的任何测试，都没有足够数量的等值形式可用。第三，重复使用成绩测试的成本令人望而却步。如果要对学习障碍项目对学生表现的影响进行深入的监测，那么制定可以相对容易地纳入大多数学习障碍项目教师日常工作的测量程序被认为是可取的。密切监测项目效果的重要性在于，这种监测使我们能够更准确地确定为个别学生提供的服务的适当性。鉴于P.L.94-142(《联邦登记册》，1977)要求为每一位残疾学生提供“适当的教育计划”，以及我们目前无法诊断和开出有效的计划(Arter&Jenkins，1978)，对学生计划的持续评估是实现实质上符合法律的唯一途径(Deno&Mirkin，1980)。除了遵守法律，关于在形成性教学评价中使用密集重复测量的研究已经产生了与其潜在好处有关的证据(Bohannon，1975；Crutcher&Hofmeister，1975；Frumess，1973；Lovitt，Schaff，&Sayre，1970；Mirkin&Deno，1979)。然而，研究结果是孤立的。本研究是为系统构建形成性评价而设计的研究开发方案
Three concurrent validity studies were conducted on the relationship between performances on formative measures of spelling and performances on standardized spelling achievement measures. Results of correlational analysis for four formative measures and three standardized measures provided support for the validity of Number of Correct Letter Sequences and Number of Correct Words on a dictated word list as indices of spelling achievement. Data from different grades (2-6) and groups (LD resource program vs regular program) supported the hypothesized developmental trends in performance across grades and the hypothesized differences in performance between regular and LD program students. Additional analyses suggested that any word selection procedure may be used and that the dictated list may be presented for one to three minutes to obtain valid results. The implications of these results for the development of a formative evaluation system that teachers can use continuously to monitor growth in spelling and to evaluate interventions are discussed. PART I CONCURRENT VALIDITY OF FORMATIVE EVALUATION PROCEDURES: SPELLING Introduction The research reported here was conducted as part of a project that has as its purpose developing formative evaluation systems for teachers to use in improving learning disabilities service programs in spelling. The primary assumptions upon which that research project is based are: (1) that the success of learning disabilities services is defined primarily by the extent to which those services improve the academic and social behavior goals of the individual students served, (2) that teachers can increase the success of learning disabilities services by systematically measuring student progress toward achievement of program goals and then adjusting student programs to improve that progress, and (3) that the technology presently available for teachers to use in measuring student progress and adjusting programs based on measured progress is either not sufficient or has not been sufficiently tested. The particular part of the research project described here was conducted to answer a first and critical question that is raised when developing a formative evaluation system in spelling: what student performance data can be routinely and easily obtained that validly index achievement? The question arises because, for several good reasons, commerically prepared standardized tests of spelling ordinarily used 1 2 to assess achievement cannot be used routinely in a formative evaluation system to monitor erformance. First, commercially produced standardized tests take too much time to administer. Second, an insufficient number of equivalent forms is available for any test to be used in the repeated measurement of performance required for formative evaluatior. Third, the cost of using achievement tests repeatedly is prohibitive. The development of measurement procedures that can be incorporated relatively easily into the daily routine of most teachers working in learning disabilities programs is deemed desirable if intensive monitoring of program effects on student performance is to occur. The importance of intensively monitoring program effects is that such monitoring enables us to more precisely determine the appropriateness of services provided to individual students. Given the requirement in P.L. 94-142 (Federal Register, 1977) that each handicapped student be provided an "appropriate educational program" and our current inability to diagnose and prescribe effective programs (Arter & Jenkins, 1978), continuous evaluation of a student's program is the only way to achieve substantive ccmplianee with the law (Deno & Mirkin, 1980). Beyond compliance with the law., research on the use of intensive repeated measurement in formative evaluation of instruction has already yielded evidence bearing on its potential benefits (Bohannon, 1975; Crutcher & Hofmeister, 1975; Frumess, 1973; Lovitt, Schaff, & Sayre, 1970; Mirkin & Deno, 1979). The research findings are isolated, however. The research and development program of which the present studies are a part was designed to systematically construct formative evaluation