We utilise tests as speech-language pathologists to assist us determine whether or not a person has speech and/or language problems. Standardized exams are sometimes used to assist us in making those judgments. What criteria do we use to choose the tests? So, we must ensure that a test is appropriate for the age and linguistic background of the individual being tested. We want to make sure that a test covers the areas of concern that parents and instructors have expressed. We also want to make sure it has good reliability and validity estimations. These are crucial test statistics to be aware of and take into account when choosing instruments for a speech-language evaluation.
In order to justify the use of a test you need high estimates of Reliability AND Validity. Let’s start with reliability. Reliability is the consistency of a test.We need to know if the test is consistent in its measuring in order to make conclusions about an individual's skills based on their performance on a test. We can't utilise our tool to guide our diagnostic judgments if it isn't consistent. As a result, while dependability is important, it isn't enough to warrant inferences based on test scores. Let's look at several different approaches to assess consistency. There are several methods for determining dependability. Reliability Split in Half We may assess split-half reliability by taking the first and second parts of the exam and comparing the consistency of replies between the two halves. We may look into split-half reliability for exams that are arranged with the simplest things first and then the most difficult ones last (as most speech-language examinations are). Inter-Rater Reliability (Inter-Rater Reliability) We look at consistency between various persons delivering the exam for inter-rater reliability. As a result, I'm going to give the test to a youngster. After that, I'll invite one of my coworkers to do the same. After that, we'll look at the consistency of the scores. Reliability is tested and retested. The instrument is being administered twice by the same rater. Today I'm putting Johnny to the test. Then I'm going to test Johnny again in five days to see whether the results are consistent. In practise, test developers consider this on a wider scale rather than on a case-by-case basis. Looking into the PLS-5-Spanish, for example, we can see that there are estimates of Test-Retest Reliability for several age groups, with around 40-80 people in each research. The reliability estimates are correlations between the test scores and the retest scores for the participants in the research. The reliability estimates for the test range from.85 to.92, which is quite high. Why isn't there a perfect 1.0 correlation? Every test we administer has a mistake. It can be caused by a variety of factors, including biassed test items, a lack of experience to testing circumstances, a lack of knowledge about what is anticipated, distraction, feeling ill, and so on. As a result, a given person will not perform the same way on the same exam every time. These are critical points to keep in mind.
It's also important to realise that dependability isn't everything. We truly need both reliability and validity to support the usage of a test. Reliability is important, but it isn't enough to warrant inferences based on test results. To put it another way, we may argue that we need a consistent instrument, but just because it's consistent doesn't mean we know what we're measuring or that it's measuring what we believe it's measuring. So, while our high level of consistency does not guarantee that our conclusions are sound, it is a crucial part of the process. Validity is the other piece of this puzzle. Validity tells us whether a test really measures what it is intended to measure? Is this a test of receptive language abilities? Is this a test of semantic abilities? Whatever the aim is, we want to know that the instrument is capable of measuring it. Validity can also be determined in a variety of methods. Validity of Content Experts in the area typically give content validity by determining if the elements that make up the exam reflect the test's purpose. Validity of the Face This is a different type of content validity that is typically assessed by the general public rather than specialists in the subject. It's as if you're asking if this exam appears to measure what it claims to measure. Validity in Relation to Criterion The link between test results and objects of practical relevance or related outcomes is investigated using criterion-related validity. The ACT and SAT, for example, are examinations used by schools to determine if students are appropriate prospects for their institution. While there are several studies that claim that high school grades are stronger indicators of college performance, examining ACT scores in relation to college success metrics is one example of criterion analysis.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
September 2021
Categories |