<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Strungadi</id>
	<title>Practical Statistics for Educators - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Strungadi"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php/Special:Contributions/Strungadi"/>
	<updated>2026-09-25T01:12:35Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.31.16</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Multiple_Linear_Regression&amp;diff=209</id>
		<title>Multiple Linear Regression</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Multiple_Linear_Regression&amp;diff=209"/>
		<updated>2019-12-04T17:11:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: /* Multiple Linear Regression interpreting results example */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Multiple linear regression (multiple regression) is a type of correlational test in which the research is interested in finding the strength of a correlation between multiple variables.  In multiple linear regression, multiple variables are used as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;predictors. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Here, the researcher is interested in the relationship between the predicted variables (dependent) and predictor variables (also known as the independent variables). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Independent variables in multiple regression are usually quantitatively measured variables using summative response, interval, or ratio scales (Lawrence, Meyer, &amp;amp; Guarino, 2017) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple Linear Regression uses the same general equation as linear regression, but accommodates for multiple IV&amp;#039;s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Thomas Fox, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Lawrence, S., Meyer, G, &amp;amp; Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Multiple Linear Regression interpreting results example==&lt;br /&gt;
Pulled from completed Multiple Linear Regression assignment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research Question:&lt;br /&gt;
To what extent and in what manner can variation in college readiness be explained by self regulation, engagement in reading, household income, and population density?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Independent Variables: Self regulation, Engagement in reading, Household income, population density&lt;br /&gt;
Dependent Variable: College Readiness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sample report interpreting results:&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple linear regression was conducted with college readiness as the criterion variable and self regulation, engagement in reading, household income and population density as predictor variables.  The model was significant F(4,45) = 17.88, p&amp;lt;.001.  Together, the variables in the model explained 61.4% of the variation in parent income, f^2=[.614/.386], 1.59. Household income contributed significantly to the prediction of college readiness p&amp;lt;.001 while self regulation, engagement, and population density did not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Scott Trungadi, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Collinearity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When conducting a multiple linear regression, you to see if the data meets the assumption of collinearity.  Therefore, you need to locate the Coefficients table in your results under the heading Collinearity Statistics, under which are two subheadings, Tolerance and VIF.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the VIF value is greater than 10, or the Tolerance is less than 0.1, then you have concerns over multicollinearity. Otherwise, your data has met the assumption of collinearity and can be written up something like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Sheri Prendergast, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dart, A., (2013).  Reporting Multiple Regressions in APA format-Part One. Retrieved from:  http://www.adart.myzen.co.uk/reporting-multiple-regressions-in-apa-format-part-one/&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Multiple_Linear_Regression&amp;diff=208</id>
		<title>Multiple Linear Regression</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Multiple_Linear_Regression&amp;diff=208"/>
		<updated>2019-12-04T17:09:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: /* Multiple Linear Regression interpreting results example */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Multiple linear regression (multiple regression) is a type of correlational test in which the research is interested in finding the strength of a correlation between multiple variables.  In multiple linear regression, multiple variables are used as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;predictors. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Here, the researcher is interested in the relationship between the predicted variables (dependent) and predictor variables (also known as the independent variables). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Independent variables in multiple regression are usually quantitatively measured variables using summative response, interval, or ratio scales (Lawrence, Meyer, &amp;amp; Guarino, 2017) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple Linear Regression uses the same general equation as linear regression, but accommodates for multiple IV&amp;#039;s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Thomas Fox, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Lawrence, S., Meyer, G, &amp;amp; Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Multiple Linear Regression interpreting results example==&lt;br /&gt;
Pulled from completed Multiple Linear Regression assignment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research Question:&lt;br /&gt;
To what extent and in what manner can variation in college readiness be explained by self regulation, engagement in reading, household income, and population density?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Independent Variables: Self regulation, Engagement in reading, Household income, population density&lt;br /&gt;
Dependent Variable: College Readiness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sample report interpreting results:&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple linear regression was conducted with college readiness as the criterion variable and self regulation, engagement in reading, household income and population density as predictor variables.  The model was significant F(4,45) = 17.88, p&amp;lt;.001.  Together, the variables in the model explained 61.4% of the variation in parent income, f2=[.614/.386], 1.59. Household income contributed significantly to the prediction of college readiness p&amp;lt;.001 while self regulation, engagement, and population density did not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Scott Trungadi, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Collinearity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When conducting a multiple linear regression, you to see if the data meets the assumption of collinearity.  Therefore, you need to locate the Coefficients table in your results under the heading Collinearity Statistics, under which are two subheadings, Tolerance and VIF.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the VIF value is greater than 10, or the Tolerance is less than 0.1, then you have concerns over multicollinearity. Otherwise, your data has met the assumption of collinearity and can be written up something like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Sheri Prendergast, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dart, A., (2013).  Reporting Multiple Regressions in APA format-Part One. Retrieved from:  http://www.adart.myzen.co.uk/reporting-multiple-regressions-in-apa-format-part-one/&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Multiple_Linear_Regression&amp;diff=207</id>
		<title>Multiple Linear Regression</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Multiple_Linear_Regression&amp;diff=207"/>
		<updated>2019-12-04T17:08:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Multiple linear regression (multiple regression) is a type of correlational test in which the research is interested in finding the strength of a correlation between multiple variables.  In multiple linear regression, multiple variables are used as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;predictors. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Here, the researcher is interested in the relationship between the predicted variables (dependent) and predictor variables (also known as the independent variables). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Independent variables in multiple regression are usually quantitatively measured variables using summative response, interval, or ratio scales (Lawrence, Meyer, &amp;amp; Guarino, 2017) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple Linear Regression uses the same general equation as linear regression, but accommodates for multiple IV&amp;#039;s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Thomas Fox, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Lawrence, S., Meyer, G, &amp;amp; Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Multiple Linear Regression interpreting results example==&lt;br /&gt;
Research Question:&lt;br /&gt;
To what extent and in what manner can variation in college readiness be explained by self regulation, engagement in reading, household income, and population density?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Independent Variables: Self regulation, Engagement in reading, Household income, population density&lt;br /&gt;
Dependent Variable: College Readiness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sample report interpreting results:&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple linear regression was conducted with college readiness as the criterion variable and self regulation, engagement in reading, household income and population density as predictor variables.  The model was significant F(4,45) = 17.88, p&amp;lt;.001.  Together, the variables in the model explained 61.4% of the variation in parent income, f2=[.614/.386], 1.59. Household income contributed significantly to the prediction of college readiness p&amp;lt;.001 while self regulation, engagement, and population density did not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Scott Trungadi, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Collinearity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When conducting a multiple linear regression, you to see if the data meets the assumption of collinearity.  Therefore, you need to locate the Coefficients table in your results under the heading Collinearity Statistics, under which are two subheadings, Tolerance and VIF.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the VIF value is greater than 10, or the Tolerance is less than 0.1, then you have concerns over multicollinearity. Otherwise, your data has met the assumption of collinearity and can be written up something like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Sheri Prendergast, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dart, A., (2013).  Reporting Multiple Regressions in APA format-Part One. Retrieved from:  http://www.adart.myzen.co.uk/reporting-multiple-regressions-in-apa-format-part-one/&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=199</id>
		<title>Instrumentation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=199"/>
		<updated>2019-12-02T16:01:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: /* The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;When attempting to measure a phenomenon in educational research, a reliable and valid instrument is necessary.  Below are descriptions of several instruments.  The writing samples come from dissertation proposals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Levels of Use (LoU). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This instrument is one of three diagnostic instruments of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that evolved out of the educational change work of Fuller, Hall, Dirksen, &amp;amp; George during the 1970s (SEDL, 2006).  The purpose of the LoU structured interview is to identify teachers’ current behaviors in regard to a specific innovation. The instrument uses a branching technique that uses operationally defined phenomenon to differentiate eight Levels of Use and decision points between each level (see Appendix E).  The district will identify a research-based instructional strategy as the innovation to be measured before the study begins. The LoU breaks use and nonuse of the innovation, or instructional strategy, into a continuum of eight categories: (a) Nonuse, (b) Orientation, (c) Preparation, (d) Mechanical Use, (e) Routine, (f) Refinement, (g) Integration, and (h) Renewal.  These levels characterize each teacher’s development in acquiring new skills and use of the innovation.  Each level describes a very different set of behavioral actions and related understandings of the innovation and its use.  Operational definitions have been developed for each Level of Use.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validity of the LoU was established using ethnographic methodology.  First, teachers were assigned LoU ratings based on interviews using the instrument.  These ratings were compared to ratings assigned to the same teachers by (a) an observer who spent a full day observing the teacher, and (b) an independent rater who read the observer’s notes and assigned a rating based on the content of the notes.  Correlations between LoU ratings obtained using the instrument and the methodology described above were .98 and .65, respectively.  Inter-rater reliability for the LoU ratings were established by converting the ratings to a numeric value; this analysis yielded a coefficient of .98 (Cronbach’s alpha).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC).  ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This reading comprehension assessment was developed by the researcher.  Reliability and validity data for the Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC; form A and form B) were collected during a pilot study.  This reading comprehension instrument was designed to reflect the comprehension strands measured on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT).  These strands include:  (a) forming a general understanding, (b) developing an interpretation, (c) making reader/text connections, and (d) examining the content/structure of text (CSDE, 2006; see Appendix B).  The researcher collected evidence for content validity by having a panel of reading experts reviewed the ARC.  The instrument was revised to more accurately reflect question stems on the CMT.  The panel determined that the instrument had strong content validity.  The reliability estimates indicate strong total test internal consistency levels.  Coefficient values for both Form A and Form B were .85 (Cronbach’s Alpha).  The alternate form reliability correlation for the ARC was .76, indicating a high positive correlation between Form A (pretest) and Form B (posttest).  Refer to Appendix C for a summary of procedures conducted during the ARC pilot study and Appendix D for a copy of Form A and Form B of the ARC.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) and Degrees of Reading Power (DRP). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students will also be administered either the Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) or the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP).  Data from one of these instruments will be utilized as a covariate to produce adjusted means for students’ initial reading achievement.  The district’s reading and language arts coordinator will determine which assessment will be administered based on which instrument yields the most valuable information for the district.  Refer to Appendix C for reliability and validity information for both instruments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structured Coaching Log (SCL). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of the coaching logs is to document the events that occur during the coaching treatments (independent variable) throughout the 10-week quasi-experiment.  The SCL will document all professional development training components and coaching strategies implemented with each teacher.  Log codes will include a teacher code, a professional development component code, the amount of time spent on each training component, and the instructional strategy focus of each coaching session.  Codes have been predetermined by the researcher to create consistent and standard log entries (see Appendix F).  Coaches will be trained to use these codes.  Evidence for content validity (Gall, Gall, &amp;amp; Borg, 2003) of the SCL was gathered during a pilot study (see Appendix E).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This scale was developed by Janna L. Scarborough, Ph.D., NCC, NCSC, ACS, Assistant Professor, and School Counseling Program Coordinator - Counseling &amp;amp; Human Services Syracuse University.  Permission from the developer has been granted to utilize the instrument.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale survey defines the logical methods of evaluation which include (a) examining the rationale for each objective within each subgroup of the rating scale as defined by the instrument in terms of coordination, consultation, curriculum, and other activities; (b) the consequences of achieving the objective as defined by preferred and actual activities; and (c) consideration of high order values of goals which is aligned in New York State to the comprehensive model of school counseling.  The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale was developed by establishing a list of work activities that reflected the job of school counselors.  Task statements were created that reflected the activities under the four major interventions described in the National Model for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003).  Items described activities in: counseling (individual and group), consultation, coordination, curriculum (classroom lessons), and other duties.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale uses a response format in which school counselors are asked how often an activity is performed.  The author recognizes that the verbal frequency scale has limitations, but it was selected for perceived ease, comprehensiveness, and flexibility.  Two types of frequencies were measured: actual and preferred activity on a 5-point rating scale numbered 1-5 as defined: (1 ) never do this; (2) rarely do this; (3) occasionally do this; (4) frequently do this; and (5) routinely do this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale’s content validity was obtained by administering a pretest to assess for production mistakes (Scarborough, 2005).  A review of the instrument was also conducted by professionals in the school counseling field.  A field test of the survey was conducted and results were achieved by utilizing the varimax rotation for factor analysis and construct validity was obtained by reviewing the scores of the one-way ANOVA (Scarborough, 2005).  Internal consistency was obtained through the Conbach’s coefficient alpha for each subset of the survey (Scarborough, 2005, p. 278). The coefficient alpha results of each subset are as follows: counseling showed a .85 for actual and .83 for preferred; coordination showed a .84 for actual and .85 for preferred; consultation showed a .75 for actual and .77 for prefer; and curriculum showed a .93 for actual and .90 for preferred (Scarborough, 2005).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readiness Survey. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) was developed to help school counselors and administrators assess their district&amp;#039;s readiness to implement the American School Counselor Association National Model (ASCA,2000), and to determine areas that will need to be addressed to successfully implement the National Model (Poynton, 2005).  The survey addresses areas of needs for implementation and diagnoses problems in readiness towards integration into local school districts.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) is composed of seven indicator areas including community support, leadership, guidance curriculum, staffing time and use, school counselor’s beliefs and attitudes, school counselor’s skills, and district resources.  The survey uses a rating scale as defined by (1) like my district; (2) somewhat like my district; (3) not like my district.  Validity and reliability of the instrument are in process of being determined as per the University of Massachusetts National Outreach Center for School Counseling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT-4) (2002) is an instrument that will be used in the study; it will be administered to students in May 2007. The GMRT-4 will be used to assess students’ level of reading achievement. GMRT-4 is found to have strong reliability and validity. The reliability estimates indicate strong total test and subtest internal consistency levels with coefficient values at or above .90.  Content validity was documented through a process of test development to identify the scope of the subtests and identify effective items within subtests.  Construct validity is supported by strong intercorrelations between subtests and total test scores. Students’ raw scores will be converted into national stanines, normal curve equivalents, percentile ranks, grade equivalents and extended scale scores (MacGinitie, et al., 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another instrument that will be used to assess the kindergarten students is The Roxy (pseudonym) Kindergarten Inventory of Skills, which is a district assessment.  The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills will assess students in the following content areas: upper and lower case letter recognition, rhyme recognition and rhyme production, initial sound production, oral blending and oral segmentation.  Content validity was originally found through the design of the test when literacy experts from the Roxy district designed the test.  Connecticut State Frameworks were reviewed, alternate tests were examined, and important concepts were included in the inventory.  Additional content validity will be found by having a jury of 10 experts including kindergarten and first grade teachers and early childhood administrators review the document and validate the content of the assessment as it compares to the Connecticut State Frameworks. The instrument was used in a pilot study in the spring of 2006 in which it was found to have construct validity. The 26 students who were deemed to be below grade level and who were struggling in kindergarten performed poorly on the assessment whereas the students who performed on grade level in class scored on grade level on the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
== The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) is a quantitative instrument focused on measuring cognitive competencies (Giancarlo, 2010).  The CM3 is administered to measure cognitive engagement and motivation toward problem solving and learning (Giancarlo, Blohm, &amp;amp; Urdan, 2004).  The CM3 is comprised of four major scales including learning orientation, creative problem solving, mental focus, and cognitive integrity (Giancarlo et al., 2004). The CM3 is composed of approximately 25 items for the four major scales.  These four factors demonstrate a stability across study samples, and scales derived from the major factors correlated with known measures of student motivation and achievement (Giancarlo et al., 2004). Level II+ of the CM3 adds a fifth important scale: scholarly rigor.  Level III of the CM3 adds a sixth major scale: technical orientation. The response format used to collect information appears in the form of a X-point Likert scale, with scales ranging from &amp;quot;strongly agree&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;strongly disagree.&amp;quot;  Sample items from the instrument are not available for view due to test security.  Scores are reported based upon a 50-point metric.  Scores ranging from 0 – 9 points represent individuals who are “strongly negatively opposed” to a particular characteristic; scores ranging from 10 – 19 reflect “somewhat negative” perceptions; scores in the 20 – 30 range are considered to be “ambivalent;” scores in the 31 – 40 range are “somewhat disposed” toward the topic; and scores of 41 and above are “strongly disposed” to the attribute (Giancarlo, 2010, p. 26).  The CM3 is both a valid and reliable quantitative instrument (Giancarlo et al., 2004).  Cronbach&amp;#039;s alpha coefficient was used to evaluate internal consistency of scores obtained by the CM3 for the four subscales of the 25-item version.  Across the studies conducted, the values ranged from 0.53 to 0.83 (Giancarlo et al., 2004).  The reliability estimates for learning orientation ranged from .79 - .83 across the various studies.  Creative problem solving produced an alpha coefficient ranging from .70 - .77.  Mental focus ranged from .79 - .83 and cognitive integrity ranged from .53 - .63 (Giancarlo et al., 2004).  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A. (2010). The California Measure of Mental Motivation: User manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., &amp;amp; Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students’ disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Scott Trungadi, Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=198</id>
		<title>Instrumentation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=198"/>
		<updated>2019-12-02T16:00:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;When attempting to measure a phenomenon in educational research, a reliable and valid instrument is necessary.  Below are descriptions of several instruments.  The writing samples come from dissertation proposals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Levels of Use (LoU). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This instrument is one of three diagnostic instruments of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that evolved out of the educational change work of Fuller, Hall, Dirksen, &amp;amp; George during the 1970s (SEDL, 2006).  The purpose of the LoU structured interview is to identify teachers’ current behaviors in regard to a specific innovation. The instrument uses a branching technique that uses operationally defined phenomenon to differentiate eight Levels of Use and decision points between each level (see Appendix E).  The district will identify a research-based instructional strategy as the innovation to be measured before the study begins. The LoU breaks use and nonuse of the innovation, or instructional strategy, into a continuum of eight categories: (a) Nonuse, (b) Orientation, (c) Preparation, (d) Mechanical Use, (e) Routine, (f) Refinement, (g) Integration, and (h) Renewal.  These levels characterize each teacher’s development in acquiring new skills and use of the innovation.  Each level describes a very different set of behavioral actions and related understandings of the innovation and its use.  Operational definitions have been developed for each Level of Use.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validity of the LoU was established using ethnographic methodology.  First, teachers were assigned LoU ratings based on interviews using the instrument.  These ratings were compared to ratings assigned to the same teachers by (a) an observer who spent a full day observing the teacher, and (b) an independent rater who read the observer’s notes and assigned a rating based on the content of the notes.  Correlations between LoU ratings obtained using the instrument and the methodology described above were .98 and .65, respectively.  Inter-rater reliability for the LoU ratings were established by converting the ratings to a numeric value; this analysis yielded a coefficient of .98 (Cronbach’s alpha).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC).  ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This reading comprehension assessment was developed by the researcher.  Reliability and validity data for the Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC; form A and form B) were collected during a pilot study.  This reading comprehension instrument was designed to reflect the comprehension strands measured on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT).  These strands include:  (a) forming a general understanding, (b) developing an interpretation, (c) making reader/text connections, and (d) examining the content/structure of text (CSDE, 2006; see Appendix B).  The researcher collected evidence for content validity by having a panel of reading experts reviewed the ARC.  The instrument was revised to more accurately reflect question stems on the CMT.  The panel determined that the instrument had strong content validity.  The reliability estimates indicate strong total test internal consistency levels.  Coefficient values for both Form A and Form B were .85 (Cronbach’s Alpha).  The alternate form reliability correlation for the ARC was .76, indicating a high positive correlation between Form A (pretest) and Form B (posttest).  Refer to Appendix C for a summary of procedures conducted during the ARC pilot study and Appendix D for a copy of Form A and Form B of the ARC.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) and Degrees of Reading Power (DRP). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students will also be administered either the Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) or the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP).  Data from one of these instruments will be utilized as a covariate to produce adjusted means for students’ initial reading achievement.  The district’s reading and language arts coordinator will determine which assessment will be administered based on which instrument yields the most valuable information for the district.  Refer to Appendix C for reliability and validity information for both instruments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structured Coaching Log (SCL). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of the coaching logs is to document the events that occur during the coaching treatments (independent variable) throughout the 10-week quasi-experiment.  The SCL will document all professional development training components and coaching strategies implemented with each teacher.  Log codes will include a teacher code, a professional development component code, the amount of time spent on each training component, and the instructional strategy focus of each coaching session.  Codes have been predetermined by the researcher to create consistent and standard log entries (see Appendix F).  Coaches will be trained to use these codes.  Evidence for content validity (Gall, Gall, &amp;amp; Borg, 2003) of the SCL was gathered during a pilot study (see Appendix E).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This scale was developed by Janna L. Scarborough, Ph.D., NCC, NCSC, ACS, Assistant Professor, and School Counseling Program Coordinator - Counseling &amp;amp; Human Services Syracuse University.  Permission from the developer has been granted to utilize the instrument.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale survey defines the logical methods of evaluation which include (a) examining the rationale for each objective within each subgroup of the rating scale as defined by the instrument in terms of coordination, consultation, curriculum, and other activities; (b) the consequences of achieving the objective as defined by preferred and actual activities; and (c) consideration of high order values of goals which is aligned in New York State to the comprehensive model of school counseling.  The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale was developed by establishing a list of work activities that reflected the job of school counselors.  Task statements were created that reflected the activities under the four major interventions described in the National Model for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003).  Items described activities in: counseling (individual and group), consultation, coordination, curriculum (classroom lessons), and other duties.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale uses a response format in which school counselors are asked how often an activity is performed.  The author recognizes that the verbal frequency scale has limitations, but it was selected for perceived ease, comprehensiveness, and flexibility.  Two types of frequencies were measured: actual and preferred activity on a 5-point rating scale numbered 1-5 as defined: (1 ) never do this; (2) rarely do this; (3) occasionally do this; (4) frequently do this; and (5) routinely do this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale’s content validity was obtained by administering a pretest to assess for production mistakes (Scarborough, 2005).  A review of the instrument was also conducted by professionals in the school counseling field.  A field test of the survey was conducted and results were achieved by utilizing the varimax rotation for factor analysis and construct validity was obtained by reviewing the scores of the one-way ANOVA (Scarborough, 2005).  Internal consistency was obtained through the Conbach’s coefficient alpha for each subset of the survey (Scarborough, 2005, p. 278). The coefficient alpha results of each subset are as follows: counseling showed a .85 for actual and .83 for preferred; coordination showed a .84 for actual and .85 for preferred; consultation showed a .75 for actual and .77 for prefer; and curriculum showed a .93 for actual and .90 for preferred (Scarborough, 2005).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readiness Survey. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) was developed to help school counselors and administrators assess their district&amp;#039;s readiness to implement the American School Counselor Association National Model (ASCA,2000), and to determine areas that will need to be addressed to successfully implement the National Model (Poynton, 2005).  The survey addresses areas of needs for implementation and diagnoses problems in readiness towards integration into local school districts.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) is composed of seven indicator areas including community support, leadership, guidance curriculum, staffing time and use, school counselor’s beliefs and attitudes, school counselor’s skills, and district resources.  The survey uses a rating scale as defined by (1) like my district; (2) somewhat like my district; (3) not like my district.  Validity and reliability of the instrument are in process of being determined as per the University of Massachusetts National Outreach Center for School Counseling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT-4) (2002) is an instrument that will be used in the study; it will be administered to students in May 2007. The GMRT-4 will be used to assess students’ level of reading achievement. GMRT-4 is found to have strong reliability and validity. The reliability estimates indicate strong total test and subtest internal consistency levels with coefficient values at or above .90.  Content validity was documented through a process of test development to identify the scope of the subtests and identify effective items within subtests.  Construct validity is supported by strong intercorrelations between subtests and total test scores. Students’ raw scores will be converted into national stanines, normal curve equivalents, percentile ranks, grade equivalents and extended scale scores (MacGinitie, et al., 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another instrument that will be used to assess the kindergarten students is The Roxy (pseudonym) Kindergarten Inventory of Skills, which is a district assessment.  The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills will assess students in the following content areas: upper and lower case letter recognition, rhyme recognition and rhyme production, initial sound production, oral blending and oral segmentation.  Content validity was originally found through the design of the test when literacy experts from the Roxy district designed the test.  Connecticut State Frameworks were reviewed, alternate tests were examined, and important concepts were included in the inventory.  Additional content validity will be found by having a jury of 10 experts including kindergarten and first grade teachers and early childhood administrators review the document and validate the content of the assessment as it compares to the Connecticut State Frameworks. The instrument was used in a pilot study in the spring of 2006 in which it was found to have construct validity. The 26 students who were deemed to be below grade level and who were struggling in kindergarten performed poorly on the assessment whereas the students who performed on grade level in class scored on grade level on the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
== The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) is a quantitative instrument focused on measuring cognitive competencies (Giancarlo, 2010).  The CM3 is administered to measure cognitive engagement and motivation toward problem solving and learning (Giancarlo, Blohm, &amp;amp; Urdan, 2004).  The CM3 is comprised of four major scales including learning orientation, creative problem solving, mental focus, and cognitive integrity (Giancarlo et al., 2004). The CM3 is composed of approximately 25 items for the four major scales.  These four factors demonstrate a stability across study samples, and scales derived from the major factors correlated with known measures of student motivation and achievement (Giancarlo et al., 2004). Level II+ of the CM3 adds a fifth important scale: scholarly rigor.  Level III of the CM3 adds a sixth major scale: technical orientation. The response format used to collect information appears in the form of a X-point Likert scale, with scales ranging from &amp;quot;strongly agree&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;strongly disagree.&amp;quot;  Sample items from the instrument are not available for view due to test security.  Scores are reported based upon a 50-point metric.  Scores ranging from 0 – 9 points represent individuals who are “strongly negatively opposed” to a particular characteristic; scores ranging from 10 – 19 reflect “somewhat negative” perceptions; scores in the 20 – 30 range are considered to be “ambivalent;” scores in the 31 – 40 range are “somewhat disposed” toward the topic; and scores of 41 and above are “strongly disposed” to the attribute (Giancarlo, 2010, p. 26).  The CM3 is both a valid and reliable quantitative instrument (Giancarlo et al., 2004).  Cronbach&amp;#039;s alpha coefficient was used to evaluate internal consistency of scores obtained by the CM3 for the four subscales of the 25-item version.  Across the studies conducted, the values ranged from 0.53 to 0.83 (Giancarlo et al., 2004).  The reliability estimates for learning orientation ranged from .79 - .83 across the various studies.  Creative problem solving produced an alpha coefficient ranging from .70 - .77.  Mental focus ranged from .79 - .83 and cognitive integrity ranged from .53 - .63 (Giancarlo et al., 2004).  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A. (2010). The California Measure of Mental Motivation: User manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., &amp;amp; Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students’ disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Scott Trungadi, Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=197</id>
		<title>Instrumentation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=197"/>
		<updated>2019-12-02T15:58:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;When attempting to measure a phenomenon in educational research, a reliable and valid instrument is necessary.  Below are descriptions of several instruments.  The writing samples come from dissertation proposals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Levels of Use (LoU). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This instrument is one of three diagnostic instruments of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that evolved out of the educational change work of Fuller, Hall, Dirksen, &amp;amp; George during the 1970s (SEDL, 2006).  The purpose of the LoU structured interview is to identify teachers’ current behaviors in regard to a specific innovation. The instrument uses a branching technique that uses operationally defined phenomenon to differentiate eight Levels of Use and decision points between each level (see Appendix E).  The district will identify a research-based instructional strategy as the innovation to be measured before the study begins. The LoU breaks use and nonuse of the innovation, or instructional strategy, into a continuum of eight categories: (a) Nonuse, (b) Orientation, (c) Preparation, (d) Mechanical Use, (e) Routine, (f) Refinement, (g) Integration, and (h) Renewal.  These levels characterize each teacher’s development in acquiring new skills and use of the innovation.  Each level describes a very different set of behavioral actions and related understandings of the innovation and its use.  Operational definitions have been developed for each Level of Use.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validity of the LoU was established using ethnographic methodology.  First, teachers were assigned LoU ratings based on interviews using the instrument.  These ratings were compared to ratings assigned to the same teachers by (a) an observer who spent a full day observing the teacher, and (b) an independent rater who read the observer’s notes and assigned a rating based on the content of the notes.  Correlations between LoU ratings obtained using the instrument and the methodology described above were .98 and .65, respectively.  Inter-rater reliability for the LoU ratings were established by converting the ratings to a numeric value; this analysis yielded a coefficient of .98 (Cronbach’s alpha).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC).  ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This reading comprehension assessment was developed by the researcher.  Reliability and validity data for the Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC; form A and form B) were collected during a pilot study.  This reading comprehension instrument was designed to reflect the comprehension strands measured on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT).  These strands include:  (a) forming a general understanding, (b) developing an interpretation, (c) making reader/text connections, and (d) examining the content/structure of text (CSDE, 2006; see Appendix B).  The researcher collected evidence for content validity by having a panel of reading experts reviewed the ARC.  The instrument was revised to more accurately reflect question stems on the CMT.  The panel determined that the instrument had strong content validity.  The reliability estimates indicate strong total test internal consistency levels.  Coefficient values for both Form A and Form B were .85 (Cronbach’s Alpha).  The alternate form reliability correlation for the ARC was .76, indicating a high positive correlation between Form A (pretest) and Form B (posttest).  Refer to Appendix C for a summary of procedures conducted during the ARC pilot study and Appendix D for a copy of Form A and Form B of the ARC.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) and Degrees of Reading Power (DRP). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students will also be administered either the Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) or the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP).  Data from one of these instruments will be utilized as a covariate to produce adjusted means for students’ initial reading achievement.  The district’s reading and language arts coordinator will determine which assessment will be administered based on which instrument yields the most valuable information for the district.  Refer to Appendix C for reliability and validity information for both instruments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structured Coaching Log (SCL). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of the coaching logs is to document the events that occur during the coaching treatments (independent variable) throughout the 10-week quasi-experiment.  The SCL will document all professional development training components and coaching strategies implemented with each teacher.  Log codes will include a teacher code, a professional development component code, the amount of time spent on each training component, and the instructional strategy focus of each coaching session.  Codes have been predetermined by the researcher to create consistent and standard log entries (see Appendix F).  Coaches will be trained to use these codes.  Evidence for content validity (Gall, Gall, &amp;amp; Borg, 2003) of the SCL was gathered during a pilot study (see Appendix E).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This scale was developed by Janna L. Scarborough, Ph.D., NCC, NCSC, ACS, Assistant Professor, and School Counseling Program Coordinator - Counseling &amp;amp; Human Services Syracuse University.  Permission from the developer has been granted to utilize the instrument.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale survey defines the logical methods of evaluation which include (a) examining the rationale for each objective within each subgroup of the rating scale as defined by the instrument in terms of coordination, consultation, curriculum, and other activities; (b) the consequences of achieving the objective as defined by preferred and actual activities; and (c) consideration of high order values of goals which is aligned in New York State to the comprehensive model of school counseling.  The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale was developed by establishing a list of work activities that reflected the job of school counselors.  Task statements were created that reflected the activities under the four major interventions described in the National Model for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003).  Items described activities in: counseling (individual and group), consultation, coordination, curriculum (classroom lessons), and other duties.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale uses a response format in which school counselors are asked how often an activity is performed.  The author recognizes that the verbal frequency scale has limitations, but it was selected for perceived ease, comprehensiveness, and flexibility.  Two types of frequencies were measured: actual and preferred activity on a 5-point rating scale numbered 1-5 as defined: (1 ) never do this; (2) rarely do this; (3) occasionally do this; (4) frequently do this; and (5) routinely do this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale’s content validity was obtained by administering a pretest to assess for production mistakes (Scarborough, 2005).  A review of the instrument was also conducted by professionals in the school counseling field.  A field test of the survey was conducted and results were achieved by utilizing the varimax rotation for factor analysis and construct validity was obtained by reviewing the scores of the one-way ANOVA (Scarborough, 2005).  Internal consistency was obtained through the Conbach’s coefficient alpha for each subset of the survey (Scarborough, 2005, p. 278). The coefficient alpha results of each subset are as follows: counseling showed a .85 for actual and .83 for preferred; coordination showed a .84 for actual and .85 for preferred; consultation showed a .75 for actual and .77 for prefer; and curriculum showed a .93 for actual and .90 for preferred (Scarborough, 2005).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readiness Survey. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) was developed to help school counselors and administrators assess their district&amp;#039;s readiness to implement the American School Counselor Association National Model (ASCA,2000), and to determine areas that will need to be addressed to successfully implement the National Model (Poynton, 2005).  The survey addresses areas of needs for implementation and diagnoses problems in readiness towards integration into local school districts.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) is composed of seven indicator areas including community support, leadership, guidance curriculum, staffing time and use, school counselor’s beliefs and attitudes, school counselor’s skills, and district resources.  The survey uses a rating scale as defined by (1) like my district; (2) somewhat like my district; (3) not like my district.  Validity and reliability of the instrument are in process of being determined as per the University of Massachusetts National Outreach Center for School Counseling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT-4) (2002) is an instrument that will be used in the study; it will be administered to students in May 2007. The GMRT-4 will be used to assess students’ level of reading achievement. GMRT-4 is found to have strong reliability and validity. The reliability estimates indicate strong total test and subtest internal consistency levels with coefficient values at or above .90.  Content validity was documented through a process of test development to identify the scope of the subtests and identify effective items within subtests.  Construct validity is supported by strong intercorrelations between subtests and total test scores. Students’ raw scores will be converted into national stanines, normal curve equivalents, percentile ranks, grade equivalents and extended scale scores (MacGinitie, et al., 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another instrument that will be used to assess the kindergarten students is The Roxy (pseudonym) Kindergarten Inventory of Skills, which is a district assessment.  The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills will assess students in the following content areas: upper and lower case letter recognition, rhyme recognition and rhyme production, initial sound production, oral blending and oral segmentation.  Content validity was originally found through the design of the test when literacy experts from the Roxy district designed the test.  Connecticut State Frameworks were reviewed, alternate tests were examined, and important concepts were included in the inventory.  Additional content validity will be found by having a jury of 10 experts including kindergarten and first grade teachers and early childhood administrators review the document and validate the content of the assessment as it compares to the Connecticut State Frameworks. The instrument was used in a pilot study in the spring of 2006 in which it was found to have construct validity. The 26 students who were deemed to be below grade level and who were struggling in kindergarten performed poorly on the assessment whereas the students who performed on grade level in class scored on grade level on the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
== The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) is a quantitative instrument focused on measuring cognitive competencies (Giancarlo, 2010).  The CM3 is administered to measure cognitive engagement and motivation toward problem solving and learning (Giancarlo, Blohm, &amp;amp; Urdan, 2004).  The CM3 is comprised of four major scales including learning orientation, creative problem solving, mental focus, and cognitive integrity (Giancarlo et al., 2004). The CM3 is composed of approximately 25 items for the four major scales.  These four factors demonstrate a stability across study samples, and scales derived from the major factors correlated with known measures of student motivation and achievement (Giancarlo et al., 2004). Level II+ of the CM3 adds a fifth important scale: scholarly rigor.  Level III of the CM3 adds a sixth major scale: technical orientation.  Descriptions of these subscales can be found in Appendix A along with an identification of the type of sample population appropriate for each level of the instrument.  The response format used to collect information appears in the form of a X-point Likert scale, with scales ranging from &amp;quot;strongly agree&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;strongly disagree.&amp;quot;  Sample items from the instrument are not available for view due to test security.  Scores are reported based upon a 50-point metric.  Scores ranging from 0 – 9 points represent individuals who are “strongly negatively opposed” to a particular characteristic; scores ranging from 10 – 19 reflect “somewhat negative” perceptions; scores in the 20 – 30 range are considered to be “ambivalent;” scores in the 31 – 40 range are “somewhat disposed” toward the topic; and scores of 41 and above are “strongly disposed” to the attribute (Giancarlo, 2010, p. 26). &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A. (2010). The California Measure of Mental Motivation: User manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., &amp;amp; Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students’ disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Scott Trungadi, Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=196</id>
		<title>Instrumentation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=196"/>
		<updated>2019-12-02T15:57:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: /* The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;When attempting to measure a phenomenon in educational research, a reliable and valid instrument is necessary.  Below are descriptions of several instruments.  The writing samples come from dissertation proposals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Levels of Use (LoU). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This instrument is one of three diagnostic instruments of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that evolved out of the educational change work of Fuller, Hall, Dirksen, &amp;amp; George during the 1970s (SEDL, 2006).  The purpose of the LoU structured interview is to identify teachers’ current behaviors in regard to a specific innovation. The instrument uses a branching technique that uses operationally defined phenomenon to differentiate eight Levels of Use and decision points between each level (see Appendix E).  The district will identify a research-based instructional strategy as the innovation to be measured before the study begins. The LoU breaks use and nonuse of the innovation, or instructional strategy, into a continuum of eight categories: (a) Nonuse, (b) Orientation, (c) Preparation, (d) Mechanical Use, (e) Routine, (f) Refinement, (g) Integration, and (h) Renewal.  These levels characterize each teacher’s development in acquiring new skills and use of the innovation.  Each level describes a very different set of behavioral actions and related understandings of the innovation and its use.  Operational definitions have been developed for each Level of Use.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validity of the LoU was established using ethnographic methodology.  First, teachers were assigned LoU ratings based on interviews using the instrument.  These ratings were compared to ratings assigned to the same teachers by (a) an observer who spent a full day observing the teacher, and (b) an independent rater who read the observer’s notes and assigned a rating based on the content of the notes.  Correlations between LoU ratings obtained using the instrument and the methodology described above were .98 and .65, respectively.  Inter-rater reliability for the LoU ratings were established by converting the ratings to a numeric value; this analysis yielded a coefficient of .98 (Cronbach’s alpha).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC).  ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This reading comprehension assessment was developed by the researcher.  Reliability and validity data for the Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC; form A and form B) were collected during a pilot study.  This reading comprehension instrument was designed to reflect the comprehension strands measured on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT).  These strands include:  (a) forming a general understanding, (b) developing an interpretation, (c) making reader/text connections, and (d) examining the content/structure of text (CSDE, 2006; see Appendix B).  The researcher collected evidence for content validity by having a panel of reading experts reviewed the ARC.  The instrument was revised to more accurately reflect question stems on the CMT.  The panel determined that the instrument had strong content validity.  The reliability estimates indicate strong total test internal consistency levels.  Coefficient values for both Form A and Form B were .85 (Cronbach’s Alpha).  The alternate form reliability correlation for the ARC was .76, indicating a high positive correlation between Form A (pretest) and Form B (posttest).  Refer to Appendix C for a summary of procedures conducted during the ARC pilot study and Appendix D for a copy of Form A and Form B of the ARC.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) and Degrees of Reading Power (DRP). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students will also be administered either the Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) or the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP).  Data from one of these instruments will be utilized as a covariate to produce adjusted means for students’ initial reading achievement.  The district’s reading and language arts coordinator will determine which assessment will be administered based on which instrument yields the most valuable information for the district.  Refer to Appendix C for reliability and validity information for both instruments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structured Coaching Log (SCL). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of the coaching logs is to document the events that occur during the coaching treatments (independent variable) throughout the 10-week quasi-experiment.  The SCL will document all professional development training components and coaching strategies implemented with each teacher.  Log codes will include a teacher code, a professional development component code, the amount of time spent on each training component, and the instructional strategy focus of each coaching session.  Codes have been predetermined by the researcher to create consistent and standard log entries (see Appendix F).  Coaches will be trained to use these codes.  Evidence for content validity (Gall, Gall, &amp;amp; Borg, 2003) of the SCL was gathered during a pilot study (see Appendix E).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This scale was developed by Janna L. Scarborough, Ph.D., NCC, NCSC, ACS, Assistant Professor, and School Counseling Program Coordinator - Counseling &amp;amp; Human Services Syracuse University.  Permission from the developer has been granted to utilize the instrument.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale survey defines the logical methods of evaluation which include (a) examining the rationale for each objective within each subgroup of the rating scale as defined by the instrument in terms of coordination, consultation, curriculum, and other activities; (b) the consequences of achieving the objective as defined by preferred and actual activities; and (c) consideration of high order values of goals which is aligned in New York State to the comprehensive model of school counseling.  The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale was developed by establishing a list of work activities that reflected the job of school counselors.  Task statements were created that reflected the activities under the four major interventions described in the National Model for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003).  Items described activities in: counseling (individual and group), consultation, coordination, curriculum (classroom lessons), and other duties.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale uses a response format in which school counselors are asked how often an activity is performed.  The author recognizes that the verbal frequency scale has limitations, but it was selected for perceived ease, comprehensiveness, and flexibility.  Two types of frequencies were measured: actual and preferred activity on a 5-point rating scale numbered 1-5 as defined: (1 ) never do this; (2) rarely do this; (3) occasionally do this; (4) frequently do this; and (5) routinely do this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale’s content validity was obtained by administering a pretest to assess for production mistakes (Scarborough, 2005).  A review of the instrument was also conducted by professionals in the school counseling field.  A field test of the survey was conducted and results were achieved by utilizing the varimax rotation for factor analysis and construct validity was obtained by reviewing the scores of the one-way ANOVA (Scarborough, 2005).  Internal consistency was obtained through the Conbach’s coefficient alpha for each subset of the survey (Scarborough, 2005, p. 278). The coefficient alpha results of each subset are as follows: counseling showed a .85 for actual and .83 for preferred; coordination showed a .84 for actual and .85 for preferred; consultation showed a .75 for actual and .77 for prefer; and curriculum showed a .93 for actual and .90 for preferred (Scarborough, 2005).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readiness Survey. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) was developed to help school counselors and administrators assess their district&amp;#039;s readiness to implement the American School Counselor Association National Model (ASCA,2000), and to determine areas that will need to be addressed to successfully implement the National Model (Poynton, 2005).  The survey addresses areas of needs for implementation and diagnoses problems in readiness towards integration into local school districts.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) is composed of seven indicator areas including community support, leadership, guidance curriculum, staffing time and use, school counselor’s beliefs and attitudes, school counselor’s skills, and district resources.  The survey uses a rating scale as defined by (1) like my district; (2) somewhat like my district; (3) not like my district.  Validity and reliability of the instrument are in process of being determined as per the University of Massachusetts National Outreach Center for School Counseling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT-4) (2002) is an instrument that will be used in the study; it will be administered to students in May 2007. The GMRT-4 will be used to assess students’ level of reading achievement. GMRT-4 is found to have strong reliability and validity. The reliability estimates indicate strong total test and subtest internal consistency levels with coefficient values at or above .90.  Content validity was documented through a process of test development to identify the scope of the subtests and identify effective items within subtests.  Construct validity is supported by strong intercorrelations between subtests and total test scores. Students’ raw scores will be converted into national stanines, normal curve equivalents, percentile ranks, grade equivalents and extended scale scores (MacGinitie, et al., 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another instrument that will be used to assess the kindergarten students is The Roxy (pseudonym) Kindergarten Inventory of Skills, which is a district assessment.  The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills will assess students in the following content areas: upper and lower case letter recognition, rhyme recognition and rhyme production, initial sound production, oral blending and oral segmentation.  Content validity was originally found through the design of the test when literacy experts from the Roxy district designed the test.  Connecticut State Frameworks were reviewed, alternate tests were examined, and important concepts were included in the inventory.  Additional content validity will be found by having a jury of 10 experts including kindergarten and first grade teachers and early childhood administrators review the document and validate the content of the assessment as it compares to the Connecticut State Frameworks. The instrument was used in a pilot study in the spring of 2006 in which it was found to have construct validity. The 26 students who were deemed to be below grade level and who were struggling in kindergarten performed poorly on the assessment whereas the students who performed on grade level in class scored on grade level on the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
== The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) is a quantitative instrument focused on measuring cognitive competencies (Giancarlo, 2010).  The CM3 is administered to measure cognitive engagement and motivation toward problem solving and learning (Giancarlo, Blohm, &amp;amp; Urdan, 2004).  The CM3 is comprised of four major scales including learning orientation, creative problem solving, mental focus, and cognitive integrity (Giancarlo et al., 2004). The CM3 is composed of approximately 25 items for the four major scales.  These four factors demonstrate a stability across study samples, and scales derived from the major factors correlated with known measures of student motivation and achievement (Giancarlo et al., 2004). Level II+ of the CM3 adds a fifth important scale: scholarly rigor.  Level III of the CM3 adds a sixth major scale: technical orientation.  Descriptions of these subscales can be found in Appendix A along with an identification of the type of sample population appropriate for each level of the instrument.  The response format used to collect information appears in the form of a X-point Likert scale, with scales ranging from &amp;quot;strongly agree&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;strongly disagree.&amp;quot;  Sample items from the instrument are not available for view due to test security.  Scores are reported based upon a 50-point metric.  Scores ranging from 0 – 9 points represent individuals who are “strongly negatively opposed” to a particular characteristic; scores ranging from 10 – 19 reflect “somewhat negative” perceptions; scores in the 20 – 30 range are considered to be “ambivalent;” scores in the 31 – 40 range are “somewhat disposed” toward the topic; and scores of 41 and above are “strongly disposed” to the attribute (Giancarlo, 2010, p. 26). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A. (2010). The California Measure of Mental Motivation: User manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., &amp;amp; Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students’ disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Scott Trungadi, Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=195</id>
		<title>Instrumentation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=195"/>
		<updated>2019-12-02T15:56:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;When attempting to measure a phenomenon in educational research, a reliable and valid instrument is necessary.  Below are descriptions of several instruments.  The writing samples come from dissertation proposals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Levels of Use (LoU). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This instrument is one of three diagnostic instruments of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that evolved out of the educational change work of Fuller, Hall, Dirksen, &amp;amp; George during the 1970s (SEDL, 2006).  The purpose of the LoU structured interview is to identify teachers’ current behaviors in regard to a specific innovation. The instrument uses a branching technique that uses operationally defined phenomenon to differentiate eight Levels of Use and decision points between each level (see Appendix E).  The district will identify a research-based instructional strategy as the innovation to be measured before the study begins. The LoU breaks use and nonuse of the innovation, or instructional strategy, into a continuum of eight categories: (a) Nonuse, (b) Orientation, (c) Preparation, (d) Mechanical Use, (e) Routine, (f) Refinement, (g) Integration, and (h) Renewal.  These levels characterize each teacher’s development in acquiring new skills and use of the innovation.  Each level describes a very different set of behavioral actions and related understandings of the innovation and its use.  Operational definitions have been developed for each Level of Use.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validity of the LoU was established using ethnographic methodology.  First, teachers were assigned LoU ratings based on interviews using the instrument.  These ratings were compared to ratings assigned to the same teachers by (a) an observer who spent a full day observing the teacher, and (b) an independent rater who read the observer’s notes and assigned a rating based on the content of the notes.  Correlations between LoU ratings obtained using the instrument and the methodology described above were .98 and .65, respectively.  Inter-rater reliability for the LoU ratings were established by converting the ratings to a numeric value; this analysis yielded a coefficient of .98 (Cronbach’s alpha).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC).  ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This reading comprehension assessment was developed by the researcher.  Reliability and validity data for the Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC; form A and form B) were collected during a pilot study.  This reading comprehension instrument was designed to reflect the comprehension strands measured on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT).  These strands include:  (a) forming a general understanding, (b) developing an interpretation, (c) making reader/text connections, and (d) examining the content/structure of text (CSDE, 2006; see Appendix B).  The researcher collected evidence for content validity by having a panel of reading experts reviewed the ARC.  The instrument was revised to more accurately reflect question stems on the CMT.  The panel determined that the instrument had strong content validity.  The reliability estimates indicate strong total test internal consistency levels.  Coefficient values for both Form A and Form B were .85 (Cronbach’s Alpha).  The alternate form reliability correlation for the ARC was .76, indicating a high positive correlation between Form A (pretest) and Form B (posttest).  Refer to Appendix C for a summary of procedures conducted during the ARC pilot study and Appendix D for a copy of Form A and Form B of the ARC.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) and Degrees of Reading Power (DRP). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students will also be administered either the Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) or the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP).  Data from one of these instruments will be utilized as a covariate to produce adjusted means for students’ initial reading achievement.  The district’s reading and language arts coordinator will determine which assessment will be administered based on which instrument yields the most valuable information for the district.  Refer to Appendix C for reliability and validity information for both instruments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structured Coaching Log (SCL). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of the coaching logs is to document the events that occur during the coaching treatments (independent variable) throughout the 10-week quasi-experiment.  The SCL will document all professional development training components and coaching strategies implemented with each teacher.  Log codes will include a teacher code, a professional development component code, the amount of time spent on each training component, and the instructional strategy focus of each coaching session.  Codes have been predetermined by the researcher to create consistent and standard log entries (see Appendix F).  Coaches will be trained to use these codes.  Evidence for content validity (Gall, Gall, &amp;amp; Borg, 2003) of the SCL was gathered during a pilot study (see Appendix E).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This scale was developed by Janna L. Scarborough, Ph.D., NCC, NCSC, ACS, Assistant Professor, and School Counseling Program Coordinator - Counseling &amp;amp; Human Services Syracuse University.  Permission from the developer has been granted to utilize the instrument.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale survey defines the logical methods of evaluation which include (a) examining the rationale for each objective within each subgroup of the rating scale as defined by the instrument in terms of coordination, consultation, curriculum, and other activities; (b) the consequences of achieving the objective as defined by preferred and actual activities; and (c) consideration of high order values of goals which is aligned in New York State to the comprehensive model of school counseling.  The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale was developed by establishing a list of work activities that reflected the job of school counselors.  Task statements were created that reflected the activities under the four major interventions described in the National Model for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003).  Items described activities in: counseling (individual and group), consultation, coordination, curriculum (classroom lessons), and other duties.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale uses a response format in which school counselors are asked how often an activity is performed.  The author recognizes that the verbal frequency scale has limitations, but it was selected for perceived ease, comprehensiveness, and flexibility.  Two types of frequencies were measured: actual and preferred activity on a 5-point rating scale numbered 1-5 as defined: (1 ) never do this; (2) rarely do this; (3) occasionally do this; (4) frequently do this; and (5) routinely do this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale’s content validity was obtained by administering a pretest to assess for production mistakes (Scarborough, 2005).  A review of the instrument was also conducted by professionals in the school counseling field.  A field test of the survey was conducted and results were achieved by utilizing the varimax rotation for factor analysis and construct validity was obtained by reviewing the scores of the one-way ANOVA (Scarborough, 2005).  Internal consistency was obtained through the Conbach’s coefficient alpha for each subset of the survey (Scarborough, 2005, p. 278). The coefficient alpha results of each subset are as follows: counseling showed a .85 for actual and .83 for preferred; coordination showed a .84 for actual and .85 for preferred; consultation showed a .75 for actual and .77 for prefer; and curriculum showed a .93 for actual and .90 for preferred (Scarborough, 2005).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readiness Survey. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) was developed to help school counselors and administrators assess their district&amp;#039;s readiness to implement the American School Counselor Association National Model (ASCA,2000), and to determine areas that will need to be addressed to successfully implement the National Model (Poynton, 2005).  The survey addresses areas of needs for implementation and diagnoses problems in readiness towards integration into local school districts.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) is composed of seven indicator areas including community support, leadership, guidance curriculum, staffing time and use, school counselor’s beliefs and attitudes, school counselor’s skills, and district resources.  The survey uses a rating scale as defined by (1) like my district; (2) somewhat like my district; (3) not like my district.  Validity and reliability of the instrument are in process of being determined as per the University of Massachusetts National Outreach Center for School Counseling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT-4) (2002) is an instrument that will be used in the study; it will be administered to students in May 2007. The GMRT-4 will be used to assess students’ level of reading achievement. GMRT-4 is found to have strong reliability and validity. The reliability estimates indicate strong total test and subtest internal consistency levels with coefficient values at or above .90.  Content validity was documented through a process of test development to identify the scope of the subtests and identify effective items within subtests.  Construct validity is supported by strong intercorrelations between subtests and total test scores. Students’ raw scores will be converted into national stanines, normal curve equivalents, percentile ranks, grade equivalents and extended scale scores (MacGinitie, et al., 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another instrument that will be used to assess the kindergarten students is The Roxy (pseudonym) Kindergarten Inventory of Skills, which is a district assessment.  The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills will assess students in the following content areas: upper and lower case letter recognition, rhyme recognition and rhyme production, initial sound production, oral blending and oral segmentation.  Content validity was originally found through the design of the test when literacy experts from the Roxy district designed the test.  Connecticut State Frameworks were reviewed, alternate tests were examined, and important concepts were included in the inventory.  Additional content validity will be found by having a jury of 10 experts including kindergarten and first grade teachers and early childhood administrators review the document and validate the content of the assessment as it compares to the Connecticut State Frameworks. The instrument was used in a pilot study in the spring of 2006 in which it was found to have construct validity. The 26 students who were deemed to be below grade level and who were struggling in kindergarten performed poorly on the assessment whereas the students who performed on grade level in class scored on grade level on the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
== The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) is a quantitative instrument focused on measuring cognitive competencies (Giancarlo, 2010).  The CM3 is administered to measure cognitive engagement and motivation toward problem solving and learning (Giancarlo, Blohm, &amp;amp; Urdan, 2004).  The CM3 is comprised of four major scales including learning orientation, creative problem solving, mental focus, and cognitive integrity (Giancarlo et al., 2004). The CM3 is composed of approximately 25 items for the four major scales.  These four factors demonstrate a stability across study samples, and scales derived from the major factors correlated with known measures of student motivation and achievement (Giancarlo et al., 2004). Level II+ of the CM3 adds a fifth important scale: scholarly rigor.  Level III of the CM3 adds a sixth major scale: technical orientation.  Descriptions of these subscales can be found in Appendix A along with an identification of the type of sample population appropriate for each level of the instrument.  The response format used to collect information appears in the form of a X-point Likert scale, with scales ranging from &amp;quot;strongly agree&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;strongly disagree.&amp;quot;  Sample items from the instrument are not available for view due to test security.  Scores are reported based upon a 50-point metric.  Scores ranging from 0 – 9 points represent individuals who are “strongly negatively opposed” to a particular characteristic; scores ranging from 10 – 19 reflect “somewhat negative” perceptions; scores in the 20 – 30 range are considered to be “ambivalent;” scores in the 31 – 40 range are “somewhat disposed” toward the topic; and scores of 41 and above are “strongly disposed” to the attribute (Giancarlo, 2010, p. 26). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A. (2010). The California Measure of Mental Motivation: User manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., &amp;amp; Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students’ disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;contributed by Scott Trungadi, Cohort 8&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=194</id>
		<title>Instrumentation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Instrumentation&amp;diff=194"/>
		<updated>2019-12-02T15:55:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;When attempting to measure a phenomenon in educational research, a reliable and valid instrument is necessary.  Below are descriptions of several instruments.  The writing samples come from dissertation proposals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Levels of Use (LoU). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This instrument is one of three diagnostic instruments of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that evolved out of the educational change work of Fuller, Hall, Dirksen, &amp;amp; George during the 1970s (SEDL, 2006).  The purpose of the LoU structured interview is to identify teachers’ current behaviors in regard to a specific innovation. The instrument uses a branching technique that uses operationally defined phenomenon to differentiate eight Levels of Use and decision points between each level (see Appendix E).  The district will identify a research-based instructional strategy as the innovation to be measured before the study begins. The LoU breaks use and nonuse of the innovation, or instructional strategy, into a continuum of eight categories: (a) Nonuse, (b) Orientation, (c) Preparation, (d) Mechanical Use, (e) Routine, (f) Refinement, (g) Integration, and (h) Renewal.  These levels characterize each teacher’s development in acquiring new skills and use of the innovation.  Each level describes a very different set of behavioral actions and related understandings of the innovation and its use.  Operational definitions have been developed for each Level of Use.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validity of the LoU was established using ethnographic methodology.  First, teachers were assigned LoU ratings based on interviews using the instrument.  These ratings were compared to ratings assigned to the same teachers by (a) an observer who spent a full day observing the teacher, and (b) an independent rater who read the observer’s notes and assigned a rating based on the content of the notes.  Correlations between LoU ratings obtained using the instrument and the methodology described above were .98 and .65, respectively.  Inter-rater reliability for the LoU ratings were established by converting the ratings to a numeric value; this analysis yielded a coefficient of .98 (Cronbach’s alpha).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC).  ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This reading comprehension assessment was developed by the researcher.  Reliability and validity data for the Assessment of Reading Comprehension (ARC; form A and form B) were collected during a pilot study.  This reading comprehension instrument was designed to reflect the comprehension strands measured on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT).  These strands include:  (a) forming a general understanding, (b) developing an interpretation, (c) making reader/text connections, and (d) examining the content/structure of text (CSDE, 2006; see Appendix B).  The researcher collected evidence for content validity by having a panel of reading experts reviewed the ARC.  The instrument was revised to more accurately reflect question stems on the CMT.  The panel determined that the instrument had strong content validity.  The reliability estimates indicate strong total test internal consistency levels.  Coefficient values for both Form A and Form B were .85 (Cronbach’s Alpha).  The alternate form reliability correlation for the ARC was .76, indicating a high positive correlation between Form A (pretest) and Form B (posttest).  Refer to Appendix C for a summary of procedures conducted during the ARC pilot study and Appendix D for a copy of Form A and Form B of the ARC.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) and Degrees of Reading Power (DRP). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students will also be administered either the Gates Macginite Reading Test (GMRT) or the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP).  Data from one of these instruments will be utilized as a covariate to produce adjusted means for students’ initial reading achievement.  The district’s reading and language arts coordinator will determine which assessment will be administered based on which instrument yields the most valuable information for the district.  Refer to Appendix C for reliability and validity information for both instruments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structured Coaching Log (SCL). ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of the coaching logs is to document the events that occur during the coaching treatments (independent variable) throughout the 10-week quasi-experiment.  The SCL will document all professional development training components and coaching strategies implemented with each teacher.  Log codes will include a teacher code, a professional development component code, the amount of time spent on each training component, and the instructional strategy focus of each coaching session.  Codes have been predetermined by the researcher to create consistent and standard log entries (see Appendix F).  Coaches will be trained to use these codes.  Evidence for content validity (Gall, Gall, &amp;amp; Borg, 2003) of the SCL was gathered during a pilot study (see Appendix E).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This scale was developed by Janna L. Scarborough, Ph.D., NCC, NCSC, ACS, Assistant Professor, and School Counseling Program Coordinator - Counseling &amp;amp; Human Services Syracuse University.  Permission from the developer has been granted to utilize the instrument.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale survey defines the logical methods of evaluation which include (a) examining the rationale for each objective within each subgroup of the rating scale as defined by the instrument in terms of coordination, consultation, curriculum, and other activities; (b) the consequences of achieving the objective as defined by preferred and actual activities; and (c) consideration of high order values of goals which is aligned in New York State to the comprehensive model of school counseling.  The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale was developed by establishing a list of work activities that reflected the job of school counselors.  Task statements were created that reflected the activities under the four major interventions described in the National Model for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003).  Items described activities in: counseling (individual and group), consultation, coordination, curriculum (classroom lessons), and other duties.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale uses a response format in which school counselors are asked how often an activity is performed.  The author recognizes that the verbal frequency scale has limitations, but it was selected for perceived ease, comprehensiveness, and flexibility.  Two types of frequencies were measured: actual and preferred activity on a 5-point rating scale numbered 1-5 as defined: (1 ) never do this; (2) rarely do this; (3) occasionally do this; (4) frequently do this; and (5) routinely do this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale’s content validity was obtained by administering a pretest to assess for production mistakes (Scarborough, 2005).  A review of the instrument was also conducted by professionals in the school counseling field.  A field test of the survey was conducted and results were achieved by utilizing the varimax rotation for factor analysis and construct validity was obtained by reviewing the scores of the one-way ANOVA (Scarborough, 2005).  Internal consistency was obtained through the Conbach’s coefficient alpha for each subset of the survey (Scarborough, 2005, p. 278). The coefficient alpha results of each subset are as follows: counseling showed a .85 for actual and .83 for preferred; coordination showed a .84 for actual and .85 for preferred; consultation showed a .75 for actual and .77 for prefer; and curriculum showed a .93 for actual and .90 for preferred (Scarborough, 2005).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Readiness Survey. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) was developed to help school counselors and administrators assess their district&amp;#039;s readiness to implement the American School Counselor Association National Model (ASCA,2000), and to determine areas that will need to be addressed to successfully implement the National Model (Poynton, 2005).  The survey addresses areas of needs for implementation and diagnoses problems in readiness towards integration into local school districts.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
The Readiness Survey (Carey, 2005) is composed of seven indicator areas including community support, leadership, guidance curriculum, staffing time and use, school counselor’s beliefs and attitudes, school counselor’s skills, and district resources.  The survey uses a rating scale as defined by (1) like my district; (2) somewhat like my district; (3) not like my district.  Validity and reliability of the instrument are in process of being determined as per the University of Massachusetts National Outreach Center for School Counseling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Deborah Hardy, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT-4) (2002) is an instrument that will be used in the study; it will be administered to students in May 2007. The GMRT-4 will be used to assess students’ level of reading achievement. GMRT-4 is found to have strong reliability and validity. The reliability estimates indicate strong total test and subtest internal consistency levels with coefficient values at or above .90.  Content validity was documented through a process of test development to identify the scope of the subtests and identify effective items within subtests.  Construct validity is supported by strong intercorrelations between subtests and total test scores. Students’ raw scores will be converted into national stanines, normal curve equivalents, percentile ranks, grade equivalents and extended scale scores (MacGinitie, et al., 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another instrument that will be used to assess the kindergarten students is The Roxy (pseudonym) Kindergarten Inventory of Skills, which is a district assessment.  The Roxy Kindergarten Inventory of Skills will assess students in the following content areas: upper and lower case letter recognition, rhyme recognition and rhyme production, initial sound production, oral blending and oral segmentation.  Content validity was originally found through the design of the test when literacy experts from the Roxy district designed the test.  Connecticut State Frameworks were reviewed, alternate tests were examined, and important concepts were included in the inventory.  Additional content validity will be found by having a jury of 10 experts including kindergarten and first grade teachers and early childhood administrators review the document and validate the content of the assessment as it compares to the Connecticut State Frameworks. The instrument was used in a pilot study in the spring of 2006 in which it was found to have construct validity. The 26 students who were deemed to be below grade level and who were struggling in kindergarten performed poorly on the assessment whereas the students who performed on grade level in class scored on grade level on the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Patricia Cosentino, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
== The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) ==&lt;br /&gt;
 The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) is a quantitative instrument focused on measuring cognitive competencies (Giancarlo, 2010).  The CM3 is administered to measure cognitive engagement and motivation toward problem solving and learning (Giancarlo, Blohm, &amp;amp; Urdan, 2004).  The CM3 is comprised of four major scales including learning orientation, creative problem solving, mental focus, and cognitive integrity (Giancarlo et al., 2004). The CM3 is composed of approximately 25 items for the four major scales.  These four factors demonstrate a stability across study samples, and scales derived from the major factors correlated with known measures of student motivation and achievement (Giancarlo et al., 2004). Level II+ of the CM3 adds a fifth important scale: scholarly rigor.  Level III of the CM3 adds a sixth major scale: technical orientation.  Descriptions of these subscales can be found in Appendix A along with an identification of the type of sample population appropriate for each level of the instrument.  The response format used to collect information appears in the form of a X-point Likert scale, with scales ranging from &amp;quot;strongly agree&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;strongly disagree.&amp;quot;  Sample items from the instrument are not available for view due to test security.  Scores are reported based upon a 50-point metric.  Scores ranging from 0 – 9 points represent individuals who are “strongly negatively opposed” to a particular characteristic; scores ranging from 10 – 19 reflect “somewhat negative” perceptions; scores in the 20 – 30 range are considered to be “ambivalent;” scores in the 31 – 40 range are “somewhat disposed” toward the topic; and scores of 41 and above are “strongly disposed” to the attribute (Giancarlo, 2010, p. 26). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References:&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A. (2010). The California Measure of Mental Motivation: User manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., &amp;amp; Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students’ disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;contributed by Scott Trungadi, Cohort 8&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Contributions_here&amp;diff=128</id>
		<title>Contributions here</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Contributions_here&amp;diff=128"/>
		<updated>2019-11-07T17:20:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: /* Student Contributors */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Editor ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frank LaBanca, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faculty Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Karen Burke, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patricia Cosentino, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deborah Hardy, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Student Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
David Bozzuto&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Karen Fildes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael Minzloff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Damien Holst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jennifer Eraca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kara Kunst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily Rhew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cassandra Cosentino&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kristina Hislop&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Fernand&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thomas Fox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Helen Knudsen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Brooksbank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scott Trungadi&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Levene%27s_p_versus_the_test_statistic_p&amp;diff=102</id>
		<title>Levene&#039;s p versus the test statistic p</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Levene%27s_p_versus_the_test_statistic_p&amp;diff=102"/>
		<updated>2019-10-18T14:46:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Levene&amp;#039;s p versus the test statistic p&lt;br /&gt;
When an  value is set at .05, any p that is smaller than .05 is producing a statistically significant different result, while any value greater than .05 is producing a statistically similar result.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
p≤.05   statistical difference&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
p&amp;gt;.05   statistical similarity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When do we want one or the other?  It depends on the question asked. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
For example, when we are looking at two sets of data to see if they are homogenous to one another for the purpose of equal variances, we want p&amp;gt;.05 so there IS statistical similarity.  Therefore the Levene’s test demonstrates homogeneity (equal variance) when p&amp;gt;.05.  (This generally results in an F≈1.)   When Levene’s is statistically similar this is a GOOD thing, because it gives us confidence that data sets have similar distributions (even though their means might be different).  In other words, the curves look similar, even though their centers might be at different points on the number line.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a t test, you are generally trying to show a difference (although not always the case).  Therefore the p≤.05.  If p≤.05 then we know that tcrit&amp;lt;tstat.  If p&amp;gt;.05, then tcrit&amp;gt;tstat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Frank LaBanca, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a great visual for &amp;#039;significantly different and similar&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Statistics.JPG|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by John Ryan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Drawing by Frank LaBanca, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is an informative video I found that explains Levene&amp;#039;s Test for Equality of Variances (also known as Levene&amp;#039;s Test for Homogeneity of Variance).  &lt;br /&gt;
[https://youtu.be/4mkEZxgxMRA Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance in SPSS]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
contributed by Scott Trungadi&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Central_Tendency&amp;diff=89</id>
		<title>Central Tendency</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Central_Tendency&amp;diff=89"/>
		<updated>2019-09-23T23:42:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Central Tendency is commonly referred to as the &amp;quot;measure of central tendency&amp;quot;.  A measure of central tendency is used to describe a data set by identifying the central position within that set of data.  In statistics, the three most commonly used measures of central tendency are mean, median, and mode.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mean: The mean is the average of all the numbers within a data set.  To find the mean value, one would add up all the values in a data set and divide that sum by the total number of data points within the data set.&lt;br /&gt;
Example - 3+4+5+6+7 = 25.   There are 5 values in this data set.  25/5 = 5.  In this scenario the mean, or average, is 5.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Median: The median is the middle point in a sorted set of data.  The median is identified by organizing the data set into order of magnitude (starting with the smallest number).&lt;br /&gt;
Once sorted the median is identified as the number directly in the middle of that sorted data.&lt;br /&gt;
Example - 6, 9, 23, 15, 2.  If we put this data set in order by magnitude it is displayed as: 2, 6, 9, 15, 23.  In this data set 9 is the median.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mode: The mode is the number that occurs most frequently in a data set.&lt;br /&gt;
Example - 2, 3, 15, 3, 5, 7, 8, 3, 2, 1, 10, 9.   &lt;br /&gt;
In this data set, 3, is the number that occurs most frequently and would be identified as the mode.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by, Scott Trungadi&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Having finally mastered the skills necessary to report my data, and thanks to the help from fellow students in my doctoral program, I was ready to write up a description of what all the numbers meant. I was excited to have reached this point in my central tendency assignment, as there is one thing I love doing, and that is write. Finally, something I might be good at! However, this also meant that I needed to understand and be able to explain what all the numbers meant.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October of 2007 during the kindergarten year, the Letter Naming Fluency&lt;br /&gt;
( LNF) portion of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (Dibels) was administered to a class of 18 kindergarten students, 10 males and 8 females.&lt;br /&gt;
The SPSS helped to process the following data regarding the testing administration. The mean score for the eighteen students for the Beginning LNF portion of Dibels was 32.33 with the median or midpoint being 35.0(Table 1). By gender, the boys in the class scored slightly lower with the mean score of 32.30 and the midpoint or median score of 34.50 as compared to the girls’ mean score of 32.38 and a median of 37.00(Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standard deviation is based on all the scores in the group and is determined by how much each score deviates from the mean, or in other words, it is an estimate of what the range of scores probably was. The standard deviation tells me that in the Beginning and Ending LNF administration, all students tested, in a similar range-16.01 and 16.87(Tables 1 and 2).&lt;br /&gt;
However, in looking at the Beginning LNF scores analyzed by gender, there is a large discrepancy between how well the boys did when compared to the girls. There was a higher standard of deviation for the boys than the girls, respectively 16.34 for the boys and 6.71 for the girls. In trying to understand the possible reasons for this, one must consider birthdates. Although birthdates were not considered in this collection of data, it is important to note that there was a higher incidence of younger birth dates for the boys than the girls which might account for this wide range in the boys’ scores.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Z scores in this statistical analysis refer to how many standard deviations a particular raw score lies above or below the group means. Table 6 indicates the range of Z scores for the students who had taken the Ending LNF portion of the Dibels test. The score range from 1.44, or 1.44 standard deviations above the group mean of 64.67 to -1.82, or 1.82 below the group mean of 64.67.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I actually felt that I began to really understand what everything meant as I was scripting my report. It was very helpful. Hope this helps someone!&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Debbie Mumford&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Shapes_of_distribution&amp;diff=88</id>
		<title>Shapes of distribution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Shapes_of_distribution&amp;diff=88"/>
		<updated>2019-09-23T22:44:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Strungadi: /* Normal (bell-shaped) distribution */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Distribution of data can take a wide variety of shapes, and ultimately depends on how data points are distributed along the measurement scale.  A general &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; for the data can be achieved by examining the uniformity (or lack thereof) of a distribution.  In general, the larger the sample size, the more symmetrical the distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uniform distribution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Normal (bell-shaped) distribution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the collected data tends to hover around a central value, with no bias to the left or the right, the data creates a Normal distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
This Normal distribution is also referred to as the &amp;quot;Bell Curve&amp;quot; because it resembles a bell like shape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When stating that data is normally distributed we are identifying that 50% of the values are less than the mean and that 50% of the values are greater than the mean.  In a normal distribution the mean, median, and mode are equal to one another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of data that follow a normal distribution could include blood pressure and scores on a test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by, Scott Trungadi&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skewness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Skewed right&lt;br /&gt;
Skewed left&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable skewness values:  &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;-1.000 &amp;lt; skewness &amp;lt; 1.000 &amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examining the data skewness allows you to see the variability of a data set. Skewness is when a data set does not follow the normal distribution. A normal distribution has a skewness of zero, and will have perfect symmetry. Data that is positively skewed will be skewed to the right and will be a positive number; data that is negatively skewed is skewed to the left of the data mean, and is a negative number. See an example of skewness, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;contributed by Cassandra Cosentino&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:skewness.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kurtosis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leptokurtic&lt;br /&gt;
Platykurtic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable kurtosis values : &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;-1.000 &amp;lt; kurtosis &amp;lt; 1.000 &amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Strungadi</name></author>
		
	</entry>
</feed>