Approved Z ATTENDANCE and PROGRESS L1aotors in TEST NORMS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ATTEEJDANCE ATID PRWREE9 F'ACTgIIS IN TEST NORMS Approved z ATTENDANCE AND PROGRESS l1AOTORS IN TEST NORMS TlillSIS Px-es&ntedtoi the Faculty of the Graduate School of Southwest TexaG State Teachers College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTERIBASTER OFOP ARTS LIB~R-Y · Southwest Texas State Teachers Collem~ SUIl "forl'IIS. T ",:'118 ~ Rosa Commander~ B~ A. B~ad'Y "TaXf:\S . San Ma~eos" T&xaa August" 1937 ACKNOViLEDGMENTS TheThe writerwZCer gratefullyg~atefn%J=yacknowledgesacknowledges theasaistanee.the at~sfseancs andand cooperationco5p~srallEanofsf? the manym~ypersonaparsons whowho havebve mademade thiskPn3.s studys$udy possiblepossfble byby theirthe2r &ncouragementa~tandand criticismorftt;fc;iaa,.. ToTo Dr.Drc, DavldF.David F. VotawTotaw ofof SouthwestSauP.hwast TexasTerns stateSkate TeachersTeearthers College~CoTSege, Sa.nSari Marcos,Marooa, TexasTexas,~ whosewlloae 'suggestionaug@;ssEitonledXed to%a theths selectionaalaotiun ofof' thethe problamandgz~abZemrm and whosewho~eguidancegnidanaa andandi untiringufitfrhg ass1gta.nc$aasZ@tm~.eeasraa ChairmanChaLrn~;t;laof'UP thetlzs CommitteeCodt;i;ae was'moatwas moat helpful,Wlpful* the writer :tsespeaially indebted. Speoial a.cl!nowledgrnent is raade of the generous eoBperaaodparaQlontlon and and aId~'$4ofof Dr.Dr+ J..Jr L10ydLloyd RogersRogers ofof' thetk@ Edu'Mu* cationaatPun departmantanddega~trnenkand of'a2 P:rofessorPrafefmx?Gataa Gates TllOll1nS,'P~IOII~~S,DirectorP$rsctor" oraF the%her EnglishEhgl%skidepartment.,d@p~a~?W@n%, who"wh~, asas membersnernber~of09 thethe Com'"Corn- mittee"mlZ;%ee, spentspa% valuablevaLmibl@t:tmearld .t;%azs and en$~gy-8D49Pg3 inf n the%he eons1dera.t1on<tomidaratEr>n ofof eacheach (letailcletal2 of'of this%hds ma.nuscp1pt.~~lamacrdpt~ Fina11y,PinaXJy, the&he wr1ta~wpf tar wls116Sw2911e9 toto expressaxgrass app~eelationapp~acfa.t;%~ton fopror herher siate1?~s%stsr, MissP~Tlss ValareeTa3area COl'l'l11Jaooer,C'ommaMer, andalzd forPOT Mrs.TO& DixieD2JeS.e BarberBa~beranda& Mr. KennethH6meth A.A* Miller,BITU~P~two%WO fellowf @Plotmembersn%mbers 01'a% thethe gradua.tesehool,a8s school, £orfor theirtheir aidaid in3n checkingchacklt.n@the %he statisticalsta%2sbTcaJ.results r.eaul%sofaf th1satudy.%his fstuay* ToTo these%hestsrpersonspe~son~l and.ad toto Mrs.E@s. MargaretZlaPgareG W~lker~W&3ksr, the%I18 writerYBJP~~~Pis%EIindebted fnd~bted fOirfor enoouragement@noou~pagemeJR~ andad friel1d.ly- friem3.3y-interest.%~fi*ex~~fsL Sa.n :Mar-eos" Texas August, 1937 1v CONTENTS Chapter Page I. TEE PROELEr~ OF THE SURVIVAL RATE FACTOR .. .. 1 1.1, BasisBasisofof I,rhisYMEI Study-St2;1dyi .. .., '"'. .., .., •. 1X ~<l2* OtherOther InvestigationsX%t@sligatfons inIn thethe SameSme FieldPfaM" .. .. It .. .. .. .. '.. " 58 3.S. UsesDsas ofof' TestaTssts*.. .. ..,* • .. .. .. .. 66 4.4. Limitations%S~L%~%SO~~Bofof NormaNs~rms asae aa BasisBaai~"forfop Oomparisons@sqarisons ... "" .. .. .. .. .. .. 99 II. TIrE lllETHOD OF THE INVESTIGATION <I' 10 .. .. 16 XI SourcesSatllascas ofof the%he DataData*.. ... II. .., ... .. •. 1616 2+ ProoedUJ!lePsooadlure ..* .. .. .. II' • .. .. .. .. 185% B. Results and , , 22 Results and InterpretationsIntsrp~~tations... .. .. '", 82 III.. THE AT~Pl~Nl)AHClg PACTOR AND ANEW-'J:'.lPE NORM.. 37 Method Employed in the Construction of a Series of Norms .. ... II 37 Interpretation of the Scale.. .. .. .. 42 IV..TV SUMMARY"STTWRP* OONCLUSIONS"C OI4CLUSIQTG3 ANDA~~ HECOMNJEl'JDATIONS..KEC OFfif;ETEIAT3:01JS a 4949 I 1",%I5l.itm111ary.9-ry* ..0 .-* ..s ..* .-C ..P •+ ..* ..* ..* 49 s.8+ ConelusionsGaaakuaLonts andand Recommendations.Racom~ndatiana. .. .' 50 APPENDIX .. .. .. ,. .. .. .. .. .. .. iii .. .. 52 BIB!,IOmtAPHY 'II, l' .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. <it • 54 I' LIST OF TABLES 1. Resu.l.ts of' the Oomputation of' a Series o£ Coe.ff1elents of Corralat:1on~ • '. .. 2. Correlation Between the Test 1iIeane a.nd the Attendanoe Pactor. .. .. .. .. " .. .. <If .. 25 3., Co:rralatlon Between the Test Means and the Coefficients of' Variation • .. .. !l>' .. .. .. 24 4.4% CorrelationCo~rsZatiionBetweenMLw~sn theLhe Test MeansNprm# andaazd theths RegressionE~~PEIPIEIZQIICoefficients.CoeFL"%aSen%~ a .. • ..r .. to .. .., :3525 5. Cor3:':ela'tion Between the Teat ]J0ans a:nd the· Percentages of OverngeuGss. .. • .. 11> .. III 26 6.. CorreIat10n Betw'een the Attendance F'actor and the Coefficients of' Variation. .. ... ~ <If .. 2'7 7. CorrelationCIo~~sZat9unBetweenB@@w@@n theP;he AttendanceAkkaslilance FactorFacta~and theEhs RegressionBs~resalonCoeffioients.Coaf FSa%enLsl • It .. '.!R. III •. 28 8. Correla.tion Between the Coefficients of.' VQ%l'iat1otl and the Percenta.ges 0'£ averageness .. 29 9.-9.. Curm3ationcorrelation .WLwesnBetween the CoefCoefficient's%%cBsnt.s of V~~5a'e;ian.Varia.tion and the RB~F~SS~O~Hegress:ton @oaTSSo2sn@sCoeffioients *'II it 3Q30 10. Correlation Between the Regression Coe.fficients a.nd the Percentages of Overageness. .. .. ., .. 31 11. Correlation Between the Attendanoe Factor and. the Percentages of OVerageness. .. .. ... .. .' 32 12ta Compat-ative Scales for Test Means and Attendance F'aetoTe... II .. 'II. .. .. ... 15-. Graphic PrElserltationof the Comparative Scales. 48 A. Raw Data .. .. ., 53 ATTENDAliJCE AJ\'D PROGRESS PACTOHS IN TEST NORMS CRAPTER I TEE PROBLEN: OF THE SURVIVAL RATE PACTOH 1. Basis of This study TheThe ma1:n.mln problemprobPp5m otof this%113.# 1nvest.lga:f;lonSnvesP;3ga%Esn1s5s tota make a c~itlea.l@~itPcaSstudyaP;ixly ofa% thethe influence1nf2usnrse onan educationaleduca.E%omltesttest normsnama ofof the importanthp~~Lan%variablesv&r?%at~X89 of02' (:l)(31) thethe peroentagegercenkags of'of sohol.asulesscWlastz3Lcs inZa averageaveragp,a dailydat9.3 attendanc.ea-htendanae,.., orUP the$31~ratio~a%2a betweenbe%weeathethe llu.mberXIIXP~~~TOof02 scholasticE*S~Q~B#%~CSs onon thethe censusCBDBIIB roll~091 andttna the*t;[email protected];uaZ :r.rumbettnumber whowho arears infn averageaverage dal1:yda%Xy a.ttendance,.attendanale, I I schoo1~. 1 andanti (2)(2) thethe age-grade~s-fl;raaestatus&atus of'aF aa s~hoo2,oror thethe amountamount j of02 [email protected] acceleratIon.accsleratf~n~ 1, AA prom.1nontp;rominekn@pl(u~e gEwe is1;4 btllngbaftng glvEfJn@van to.t;a standardizedstandazdizsd testateats inin ou~OUP educationalsr3tuoatlamX system"syatan, amam3 the'the gene-raJ.gene3raZ feelingfeeXing 182a tha.t%hattha:t:J.'l klle33t~pla.ce pplaco isis seeureliiascw8, InXn the2;he pastpa&$ twentytwenty yearsgears there%hershavehave beenbsslr greatgZ?eaP;developments Bevalagmen%a inItn thel21e 1m.provementkprov@m@nP, a.ndand popu1.a,.,.iza.tlonp#pxClst~i%a.tltonof'of measurementIlaeasu~@n@n%inin education,.educa'i;ion, andand onon thethe wholewhale the.t-;hs progressp~og;e,easinIn the%126 fieldftrsld ha.shas beanbsen substantialaubelan6iaS a.ndanti ;rca.l.real+ However)'haw eve^, therekEss~eaream many many problemsp3?ob3tsm related~ePatedtoto tasting%eat%ngwhioh aream stillakt;%klunaolved,.unsolved, Oneone of02 thek318 out.s'tamingau%s%ardl~problemsp~ublens inin educationalelgtsoa%%o;na% lneaawem.&:nts~waswramsntais:Xs thetihs useus~aandlntex>p:pet-atlQnand Znt;a~prestatiunofof teattese norms.Mmsa AnAn ana.lys1sanaxysL8 01'of most-most edu.catiorm'leduca%5ordtteat test normanoms reveals~~vealc4thatthat -2. * 2: they are influenced by many uncontrolled factors. Grade normsnoma andand ageage, normsnams havehave forfor somesum timetlms beenhen consideredoan~idared ae~:t.oulJly unreliable. Harry A. Greene, in his intro duction to the U:n:1veX'sl ty of Iowa Studies In Education. Research Bulletin nu:mbe):'l 1. states thai; Grad$G~ntienormanom~ aream generallyg.esneralXy consideredcunsidarsd s$~loualyssrloua3.y unreliable.~.~ms~ta'b~e,AgeAge no~nanom'pta mayma$ improve%raprovethe the situation~ti+kuaE%osz somewhat~OHIIBW~~~butbut thekhe analysleawLysli_aot'typ1en1 of typical practicespracEScg~j inin the*he de:Vlvatlondrs~8anClormofof suohstmh normSnorm 1nd:tcates2M.4ca%et3thatth~t therethe~eareare stills%flJlnany1~~x19 v~"1ablasvwiab165 which38ikf0h are-a notmt controlled.coilt~olXed, .AgeAga nomsmms basedbased uponupon thethe [email protected]... lng.Zng ofof' tl1.6GI@ sam.es8m~studentstgf;ud@ntf4 whoal'ewho usedZISB~Infn thethe d.erivationdtmlvakf on ofaf agesga norrtls:raomh~introduce fn%saduoemanyman7 unus1Ullwlusl;taX conditions.oondf %iom* S1U'~lya.ge9weXy aga 1s38 nQtnot the-63 onlyon;ty faeto~f aekt;ls~ wh1.chwl~lehmustmuse beeontrolled~1,s aaszL~oll&ed~DoesBoaa the.1;Xm menta1mentax ab111a'tsZltLyty at:of thet31a incHIndLvla~nlvidual orQF thethe educationalsduca.tPom5. prog:t~esspz7agpL'oss 12S.'76?I~TTOanya1q- il1i'luonca 91zr"X?~@nceon0x1 expectodexpectad ageage orOP gradegrade seores?scores? IsIs the%be abl15.abiX3-kzrt1T ofof theIth%twelve'" fmcLve- yearyear oldold l:ndn the%JIG i'ifthIfbffkil'rgrade pad@the%31s SOf,1Ssm3e asa8 thatLImt ofsf the&ha twelve~aQrtwelve -year oldold ~n9n thet51e sev$nthsattan%hgrade?g~5&3? TheTho answeraanswer 1s111 obviously~~abviansbyin%aa the%ha nega.:tive.lne~a%iae*z J.J. RR... Crawfo:rd~rarrford~2 hasllas mademade aa comprehensIveoomp~@hemsivestudystudy ofof the influence otteducat1onal test norms of three :tmportan-t var:tables:vapiab3te~: na.melynai~42y,I chronological ~Izvo?~olaglaakageage, ~ l'll$ntalmntal age,age, andand the%.e schoolschsaJ progressprogmms ofsf thethe 1ndivld1?a.la%n&ivid~xalsuseduaad in3.n thethe derivat:ton of the norms. He haa also suggested that similar studies should be ma.de for -the pl.W'poa.e of 1nvestlgat1tlgall phases of' the eff'ents of these and. othel? possible factors on t$st. norms .. 1..5,