1 / 31

Criterion-Referenced Measurement: Advantages, Limitations, and Applications

This chapter explores the concept of criterion-referenced measurement, its advantages and limitations, and its applications in different fields. It discusses the process of setting criteria for acceptable performance and the benefits of using criterion-referenced testing. The chapter also covers statistical analysis of criterion-referenced tests, considerations, and examples of criterion-referenced standards.

painter
Télécharger la présentation

Criterion-Referenced Measurement: Advantages, Limitations, and Applications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 7 Criterion-Referenced Measurement Poor Sufficient Better

  2. Criterion-Referenced Testing • Mastery Learning • Standard Development Judgmental Normative Empirical Combination

  3. Guidelines for Writing Behavioral Objectives(Mager , 1962) • Identify the desired behavior by name • Define the desired behavior • Specify the criteria of acceptable performance

  4. Advantages of Criterion-Referenced Measurement • Represent specific, desired performance levels linked to a criterion • Are independent of the proportion of the population that meets the standard • If not met, specific diagnostic evaluations can be made • Degree of performance is not important . . . reaching the standard is

  5. Limitations of Criterion-Referenced Measurement • Cutoff scores always involve subjective judgment • Misclassifications can be severe • Students who meet the cutoff may no longer be motivated to do better

  6. Setting a Cholesterol “Cut-Off” N of deaths Cholesterol mg/dl

  7. Setting a Cholesterol “Cut-Off” N of deaths Cholesterol mg/dl

  8. Statistical Analysis of CRTs • Nominal Data • Contingency Table Development • Phi Coefficient (PPM) • Chi-Square Analysis

  9. Considerations with CRT • The same as norm-referenced testing • Reliability Consistency of measurement • Validity Truthfulness of measurement

  10. Figure 7.1 (a)FITNESSGRAM Standards Below the criterion VO2max Above the criterion VO2max Did not achieve the standard on the run/walk test Did achieve the standard on the run/walk test

  11. Figure 7.1 (b)AAHPERD Physical Best Standards Below the criterion VO2max Above the criterion VO2max Did not achieve the standard on the run/walk test Did achieve the standard on the run/walk test

  12. Meeting Criterion-Referenced StandardsPossible Decisions

  13. Table 7.1Test-Retest Reliability Example Day 2 P = .825 K = .576 Phi = .586 C2 = 137.13, df = 1, p < .001

  14. Table 7-2Criterion-Referenced Equivalence Reliability Between the 1 Mile Run/Walk and PACER

  15. Figure 7.3A theoretical example of the divergent group method

  16. Examples of Criterion Referenced Standards • Cholesterol < 240 mg / dl • Systolic Blood Pressure < 140 mmHg • Diastolic Blood Pressure < 90 mmHg • FITNESSGRAM 1-mile run time for boy age 10 < 11:30 • President’s Challenge Health Fitness curl-ups girl age 14 > 24

  17. Day 2 Fail Pass Fail Day 1 Pass CRT Reliability

  18. Criterion Fail Pass Fail Field Test Pass CRT Validity

  19. Racquetball Example • Can a wall volley test serve as a good criterion measure to determine who should enter intermediate racquetball? • Example • Reliability study • Validity study

  20. Front Wall 2 extra racquetballs You must always hit the ball from behind the broken line The test 4 attempts 30 secs each Trial 1 attempts 1 + 2 Trial 2 attempts 3 + 4

  21. Reliability study • Set a standard for passing the field test • Our standard is set at 25 hits • You must hit the ball against the front wall at least 25 times in a trial. This meets the “standard” for entry into intermediate racquetball • Recall a trial consists of the total of two attempts • You want to see if players can achieve the standard on each trial. If you determine the consistency of their meeting the standard, this is a criterion-referenced reliability study.

  22. Failed to meet standard (< 25) Met the standard (>= 25) Failed to meet standard (<25) Met the standard (>=25)

  23. SPSS output This field test demonstrates acceptable criterion-referenced reliability Chi square = 23.6, p < .001 Phi = 0.65 Percent agreement = (37 + 11)/56 = 48/56 = 85.7%

  24. Validity study • The standard for passing the field test is 25 hits • We need a criterion measure of TRUE racquetball ability • We used self reported racquetball experience • Inexperience = novice player • Experienced = skilled OR completed beginning racquetball class • You want to see if experienced players are more likely to achieve the standard on the field test and the inexperienced players are less likely to meet the field test standard. This is a criterion-referenced validity study.

  25. Experienced Inexperienced < 25 hits >= 25 hits

  26. SPSS output Trial 1 vs. Criterion Chi square = 6.7, p < .01 Phi = 0.35 Percent agreement = (33 + 8)/56 = 41/56 = 73%

  27. SPSS output Trial 2 vs. Criterion The results of the TWO validity studies suggest this field test and the criterion of 25 hits is a moderately valid measure of racquetball experience Chi square = 4.8, p < .03 Phi = 0.29 Percent agreement = (30 + 9)/56 = 39/56 = 70%

  28. Table 7-8 Research Designs in Epidemiology Type Description Experimental Randomized clinical trial Randomly assign subjects to treatments or exposures Community trial Randomly assign whole communities to treatments or exposures Observational Cases series Noting cases at a particular time or place Cross-sectional A snapshot of identifiable groups at one point in time Proportionate mortality or morbidity study Compare results of a study group to the population Case-control Known cases of mortality or morbidity are compared to matched non cases Cohort Longitudinal, generally long term tracking of populations

  29. Epidemiological statistics • Incidence – the number, proportion, rate, or percentage of new cases of mortality and morbidity. Incidence could be calculated in a randomized clinical trial or a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. • Prevalence – the number, proportion, rate, or percentage of total cases of mortality and morbidity. Prevalence would be calculated in a cross-sectional study.

  30. Estimates of Risk • Absolute risk - the risk (proportion, percentage, rate) of mortality or morbidity in a population that is exposed or not exposed to a risk factor. • Relative risk - the ratio of risks between the exposed or unexposed populations. This statistic is calculated with incidence measures. • Odds ratio - an estimate of relative risk used in prevalence studies. • Attributable risk - the risk of mortality and morbidity directly related to a risk factor. It can be thought of as the reduction in risk related to removing a risk factor.

  31. Table 7-9Results of a hypothetical study relating cholesterol and heart attack mortality Exposure Outcome Heart Attack Deaths No Heart Attack Deaths High Cholesterol A 25 B 31 No High Cholesterol C 7 D 37

More Related