How the reason for a school move relates to school adjustment

Several authors have suggested reasons for children transferring to new schools, and they have hypothesized that the reasons may affect the nature and tenure of the transition process. The present study investigated the reasons parents of 451 elementary school children gave for changing schools and demonstrated that the reasons influenced children's ability to adjust to their new schools. Specifically, children transferring because their old school closed were more competent academically and had a higher average socioeconomic status than did the other groups. On the other hand, those transferring because of changing households had poorer academic performance and more stressful life events on average than the other groups. Finally, reasons for moving not only vary according to race, but the effects of the reasons are different for each racial group. Implications for school personnel seeking to integrate transfer students into their schools effectively are discussed.     

The individual family service plan: Unresolved problems

The federal requirement to develop an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) for all infants and toddlers with special needs has a major conceptual difficulty that has, to date, been inadequately addressed in the literature. That problem stems from the linkage of family service to family assessment. Many authorities, attracted to parental “empowerment” theory, advocate that parents should be the authors rather than (or as well as) the objects of assessment, and that professionals and parents should be partners in assessing needs and planning services. When there is disagreement, professionals should defer to parents, who are in the best position to assess their own needs. We question the wisdom of conducting assessments with, or on, families of targeted children. But, if there are to be assessments, we argue that families are better served, and mutual respect better preserved, by a traditional complementary relationship: The professional controls the evaluation process, determines the problems (with the input of the family), and makes recommendations, which parents are then free to reject.     

Detecting potential hucksterism in meta-analysis using a follow-up fail-safe test

Meta-analysis is an analysis of analyses. It is a technique widely used by researchers and practitioners to aggregate and summarize statistically reported empirical educational research. In 10 years, meta-analysis appeared more than 600 times in research journals and dissertation abstracts. Although most meta-analyses were reported as significant, few of the findings determined how many unpublished “no-effect” studies, if sampled, would have invalidated significance. If significant meta-analysis results are over represented through selective sampling, hucksterism in the form of sampling bias exists. An explanation for using a follow-up test called the fail-safe N is provided with tables constructed to assist researchers and practitioners to estimate, without calculation, the relative stability of meta-analysis results. The implication is that failsafe N should routinely be used and reported in meta-analysis research.     

Validity of the parenting inventory: Young children

The Parenting Inventory: Young Children (PI) is a rating scale that measures the developmental expectations and behaviors of parents of children who are between the ages of 1 and 4 years, 11 months. Using a representative urban sample of 1,056 mothers, the PI was found to discriminate successfully between parents with children of different ages and to have substantial item-construct correlations (content validity). The PI was not strongly related to the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory, a measure of parenting attitudes (discriminant validity). Reasons for this latter finding are discussed. Potential uses of the PI for practitioners working with parents in the schools are described.     

Curriculum bias and reading achievement test performance

The overlap of words specifically taught in reading textbooks with the contents of standardized reading achievement tests may be a source of bias that is frequently overlooked in psychoeducational assessments. This study compares the standardized achievement test performance of 62 second graders receiving instruction in two different reading curricula (Open Court and Houghton-Mifflin) to determine whether either curriculum generates different quantitative estimates of reading achievement. Reading subtest scores derived from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Brief Form (K-TEA), the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R), and the Reading Recognition and Reading Comprehension subtests from the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) were examined. Grade level equivalents and scaled scores from the California Achievement Test (CAT) were also examined. Three Curriculum × Test repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted using grade level scores (2×7), standard scores (2×4), and CAT scaled scores (2 × 5) as dependent measures. A significant Curriculum × Test interaction was identified, suggesting differences among tests in estimates of reading ability as a function of the reading program.     

IQ and achievement: 1930s to 1980s

One hundred thirty-eight fifth-grade students from three upstate New York school districts were administered a 1930s version of the Pintner General Ability Tests: Verbal Series. Scores from this test were compared and correlated with scores from current IQ and achievement tests. The Pintner means were similar to those of the current IQ tests; the correlations of the Pintner with the other tests were of the same order as those typically reported among contemporary measures; and item difficulty, as indicated by rank order, appeared similar for the current sample and the 1930s norm groups. The findings are discussed with reference to research that has shown sharp increases in IQs of Americans since the 1930s and questions concerning changes in mental ability measures.     

The retrograde motion of planets and children: Interpreting percentile rank

A common method used to interpret raw scores is to convert them into percentile rank. The broad application of percentile rank in almost all norm-referenced tests, and the exclusive use in some tests, requires the conversion of raw scores. Because percentile rank is not a linear transformation of raw scores, percentile-rank transformation in the lower and upper part of the raw-score distribution relates percentile rank and raw scores differently than in the center of the raw-score distribution. This paper describes the popularity of using percentile rank and offers an interpretation of the use of percentile rank with normal and skewed score distributions.