Concurrent and predictive validity of the WISC-R,McCarthy Scales,Woodcock-Johnson,and academic achievement

Twenty-six normal first-grade children (M = 7.0 years) were administered the WISC-R, the McCarthy Scales, and the Woodcock-Johnson Scales of Cognitive Ability. Two years later, their levels of academic achievement were determined by way of the WRAT and global teacher ratings of classroom performance. Pearson intercorrelations among the summary indices of the three intellectual measures were significant and uniformly high (rang. 77-.95). Correlations between first-grade ability scores and third-grade achievement measures also were significant (range .64-.90), suggesting strong predictive validity for each of the cognitive instruments. Though not significantly so, the correlations between the Woodcock-Johnson and achievement tended to be the highest. The results indicate that all three intellectual measures are appropriate for predicting later academic achievement in young school-aged children.     

Goal setting and personal responsibility training for LD adolescents

A training program designed to teach Learning Disabled junior high school students to set realistic achievement goals, to expend effort to reach the goals, and to accept personal responsibility for achievement outcomes was conducted with 61 LD adolescents attending four junior high schools. Students were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Goal setting strategies and effort attribution training were introduced for a six-week period. Pre- to posttesting indicated that the experimental group learned to set realistic goals and to attribute achievement outcomes to the amount of personal effort expended.     

Systematic Comparison of Decision Accuracy of Complex Compensatory Decision Rules Combining Multiple Tests in a Higher Education Context

This real‐data‐guided simulation study systematically evaluated the decision accuracy of complex decision rules combining multiple tests within different realistic curricula. Specifically, complex decision rules combining conjunctive aspects and compensatory aspects were evaluated. A conjunctive aspect requires a minimum level of performance, whereas a compensatory aspect requires an average level of performance. Simulations were performed to obtain students' true and observed score distributions and to manipulate several factors relevant to a higher education curriculum in practice. The results showed that the decision accuracy depends on the conjunctive (required minimum grade) and compensatory (required grade point average) aspects and their combination. Overall, within a complex compensatory decision rule the false negative rate is lower and the false positive rate higher compared to a conjunctive decision rule. For a conjunctive decision rule the reverse is true. Which rule is more accurate also depends on the average test reliability, average test correlation, and the number of reexaminations. This comparison highlights the importance of evaluating decision accuracy in high‐stake decisions, considering both the specific rule as well as the selected measures.