|
Report 1: Interpretation with Norm Referencing, Domain
Referencing, and/or
Expectancy
Tables
1.
Purpose. (What kinds of
interpretations would you like to make?)
2.
Age/grade/setting. (For what kind(s) of
people?)
3.
Test 1 (Author(s), title,
publisher, publication date)
4.
Test 2 (similarly) (If only
one test exists to meet your purpose, stick with the one but explain.)
5.
Illustrative items. (Display items from
the test; approximately two or three items for total score, or one or two for
a subscore; practice items preferred.) (Try a few items with someone.)
6.
Evidence to support norm-referenced
interpretations. (Nature and size of group(s), availability of subgroups,
types of scores reported)
7.
Evidence to support domain-referenced
interpretations. (If appropriate) (Number of objectives, items per
objective, standard setting method if applicable)
8.
Evidence to support expectancy-based
interpretations. (If appropriate) (Criterion measure, group, relationship)
9.
Interpretation for a hypothetical test taker. (Develop a monologue
or dialogue interpretation of performance on this test for a mythical test
taker. Role play an interpretation for one test taker with made-up test
results.)
10.
Your critique of the evidence to support
“purposeful” interpretations. (What evidence is helpful? What could be
improved? What is included out that
you would like to have available?)
11.
Reviewers’ critiques of such evidence or lack
thereof. (If available; can also do PsychLit or ERIC searches
. . .) (Address these topics of interpretation—leave topics of reliability,
validity, morbidity, liquidity, and such out of the report.)
12.
Summary. (How well would one or
both of these tests support your interpretations?)
13.
Reference list. (APA-type style
preferred; e.g., Hasenpfeffer, B.B. (1995). Review of the Rapid Rabbit
Test. In J.C. Conoley & J.C.
Impara (Eds.) The Twelfth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp.
88-89). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements.)
|