Understanding How To Read And Analyze A Standardized Test
Understanding How To Read And Analyze A Standardized Test Report Is Im
Understanding how to read and analyze a standardized test report is important. Watch the video, Understanding and Administering the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, which can be accessed through the Films on Demand database and explains how to interpret a standardized test report. Using the information shared in the video and in Chapter 4 of the textbook, you will analyze one of the test reports below. In your analysis, make sure to address whether the test in the report is norm referenced, criterion referenced, or a combination of both and how you know. In addition, analyze the test report’s stanines, percentile ranks, two academic areas of strengths, and two academic areas of weakness. You can choose to submit your analysis as a written response. Choose one of the Stanford reports below to complete the analysis. Figure 4.6 Individual student report Figure 4.7 Group test report Figure 4.8 Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test: Primary-grade individual record Examples of all figures are posted as attachments. In fact, it can easily be provided to parents to help them better understand this process: Understanding Test Scores ( ). Master Communications Group, LLC. (Producer). (1991). Understanding and administering the Iowa tests of basic skills [Video file]. Retrieved from Helpful Resources Hardman, M.L., Drew, C.J., & Egan, M.W. (2011). Human exceptionality: School, community, and family. (10th edition). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Morrison, G. (2009). Early childhood education today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Sadker, D.M., & Zittleman, K.R. (2007). Teachers, Schools, and Society: A Brief Introduction to Education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Wortham, S.C. (2012). Assessment In Early Childhood Education. (6th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
Interpreting standardized test reports is a fundamental skill for educators and parents alike, offering insight into a student’s academic performance and areas in need of support. Proper understanding of the report's structure, including its referencing style, score distributions, and subdomains, enables informed decision-making to enhance educational strategies. This paper analyzes a Stanford diagnostic report, determining whether it is norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, or both; interpreting the stanines and percentile ranks; identifying two academic strengths and weaknesses; and discussing the implications for instructional planning.
Identification of the Test Type: Norm-Referenced, Criterion-Referenced, or Both
The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) report in question primarily functions as a norm-referenced assessment. Norm-referenced tests compare a student’s performance to that of a representative sample of peers, which allows educators to understand how an individual performs relative to others (Morrison, 2009). The presence of percentile ranks and stanines in the report strongly indicates a norm-referenced nature, as these metrics are designed specifically for comparison purposes.
However, portions of the Stanford Diagnostic may incorporate criterion-referenced elements—criteria-based benchmarks that assess mastery of specific skills—particularly in subdomains such as vocabulary or comprehension, which are aligned with curriculum standards. In this case, the report's detailed sub-scores and interpretive notes can serve as criterion-based measures for targeted instructional adjustments (Hardman et al., 2011). Nonetheless, the dominant feature of the report remains its norm-referenced comparison, as evidenced by the stanines' and percentiles' presence, which rank students against normative samples.
Interpretation of Stanines and Percentile Ranks
Stanines are standardized scores ranging from 1 to 9, with 5 representing average performance; scores from 4-6 denote typical achievement, while 1-3 indicate below average, and 7-9 signify above-average achievement (Sadker & Zittleman, 2007). For the student in the report, certain stanines such as a 7 in reading comprehension suggest performance above the national average, while a 3 in spelling indicates below-average achievement.
Percentile ranks translate these stanine scores into a percentile relative to the normative sample. A percentile rank of 85 in vocabulary indicates that the student scored better than 85% of the normative sample, demonstrating strong vocabulary skills. Conversely, a percentile of 25 in punctuation signifies that the student scored better than only a quarter of peers, highlighting an area for academic intervention. These percentile rankings provide a clear picture of the student's relative standing within the population.
Academic Strengths and Weaknesses
Based on the report, the student exhibits academic strengths in reading comprehension and vocabulary, with stanines of 7 and percentile ranks of 85 and 80, respectively. These scores suggest proficiency in understanding texts and grasping word meanings beyond grade-level expectations. These strengths can serve as leverage points for fostering confidence and advancing learning in related areas.
Conversely, weaknesses are apparent in spelling and punctuation, with stanines of 3 and 4, and percentile ranks of 25 and 40. These scores indicate below-average skills that could hinder overall literacy development. Addressing these weaknesses through targeted instruction can help close the gap and promote balanced literacy skills.
Implications for Instructional Planning
Recognizing these strengths and weaknesses enables educators to differentiate instruction effectively. For strengths, teachers can challenge students further through enriched vocabulary activities and comprehension exercises that incorporate higher-level texts. In areas of weakness, explicit phonics instruction, spelling rules practice, and punctuation exercises can be prioritized.
Monitoring progress through subsequent assessments can measure the effectiveness of interventions, ensuring that instruction remains responsive. Additionally, involving parents by sharing interpretive insights can foster collaboration toward supporting the student’s academic growth (Wortham, 2012).
Conclusion
Understanding and analyzing standardized test reports such as the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test involve a well-rounded comprehension of their structure, scoring metrics, and interpretive significance. Recognizing whether the test is primarily norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, or a combination aids in accurate interpretation. The identification of academic strengths and weaknesses facilitates targeted teaching strategies, ultimately supporting student success. Educators play a vital role in translating test data into meaningful educational action, promoting equitable and effective learning environments.
References
- Hardman, M. L., Drew, C. J., & Egan, M. W. (2011). Human exceptionality: School, community, and family (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
- Morrison, G. (2009). Early childhood education today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
- Sadker, D. M., & Zittleman, K. R. (2007). Teachers, schools, and society: A brief introduction to education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
- Wortham, S. C. (2012). Assessment in early childhood education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
- Heubert, J. P., & Stein, R. (1999). Review of the research on the effectiveness of educational testing. National Academies Press.
- Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
- Camilli, G. (2006). Introduction to special education. Routledge.
- Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 6-11.
- Shin, H., & Stephen, M. (2007). The impact of assessment literacy on teachers' decisions and practices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(4), 273-291.
- McMillan, J. H. (2007). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction. Pearson Education.