Instructional Sensitivity Research Articles

Instructional Sensitivity Expanded

The presently viewed role and utility of measures of instructional sensitivity were summarized. A case was made that the rationale for the assessment of instructional sensitivity can be applied to all achievement tests and should not continue to be restricted to criterion-referenced mastery tests. Next, a line of research and theory concerning context dependence in tests containing interpretive exercises was outlined. The logic of this theory was integrated with the rationale of instructional sensitivity. Finally, practical interrelationships among content validity, reliability, instructional sensitivity, and related measures were discussed and illustrated by use of a varied sample of test items and data.

The Objectives-Based Motor-Skill Assessment Instrument: Validation of Instructional Sensitivity

To validate the instructional sensitivity of the Objectives-based Motor-skill Assessment Instrument 34 preschoolers aged 30 to 65 mo. were randomly assigned to a group who received formal motor-skill instruction or one who received supervised free play for 30 min. three times weekly for 10 wk. This test was administered before and after 10 wk. according to standardized procedures. A one-way analysis of covariance was applied to the total-test score to examine the effect of training, using the pretest data as the covariate. When the differences attributed to pretest scores were partialled out, there were significant between-group differences in posttest scores favoring the instructed group. This result supports the claim by the test developer that the test can be used to evaluate the success of fundamental training programs for gross motor skill.

Quasi-Experimentation in Educational Settings: Comment

Previous articleNext article No AccessQuasi-Experimentation in Educational Settings: CommentDavid E. Wiley, and R. Darrell BockDavid E. Wiley Search for more articles by this author , and R. Darrell Bock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 75, Number 4Winter, 1967 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/442819 Views: 5Total views on this site Citations: 17Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1967 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Lynn McIntyre, Edwin G. Beizer, Lise Manchester, Wade Blanchard, Suzanne Officer, A. Catherine Simpson The Dartmouth Health Promotion Study: A Failed Quest for Synergy in School Health Promotion, Journal of School Health 66, no.44 (Apr 1996): 132–137.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1996.tb08233.xLynn McIntyre, Edwin G. Belzer, Lise Manchester, Wade Blanchard, Suzanne Officer, A. Catherine Simpson The Dartmouth Health Promotion Study: A Failed Quest for Synergy in School Health Promotion, Journal of School Health 66, no.33 (Mar 1996): 132–137.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1996.tb06262.xRobert J. Mislevy What Can We Learn from International Assessments?, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17, no.44 (Nov 2016): 419–437.https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737017004419Robert J. Mislevy WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENTS?, ETS Research Report Series 1995, no.11 (Aug 2014): i–32.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1995.tb01647.xBengt O. Muthen Multilevel Factor Analysis of Class and Student Achievement Components, Journal of Educational Measurement 28, no.44 (Dec 1991): 338–354.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1991.tb00363.xDavid L. McArthur A Comparison of Models for Measuring Achievement, (Jan 1987): 249–265.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3257-9_9RALPH A. HANSON, ROBERT F. MCMORRIS, JERRY D. BAILEY DIFFERENCES IN INSTRUCTIONAL SENSITIVITY BETWEEN ITEM FORMATS AND BETWEEN ACHIEVEMENT TEST ITEMS, Journal of Educational Measurement 23, no.11 (Mar 1986): 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1986.tb00230.xRalph A. Hanson Program evaluation and improvement based on cost-effectiveness analyses, Studies in Educational Evaluation 12, no.11 (Jan 1986): 89–108.https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(86)90039-8Daniel L. Stufflebeam, William J. Webster An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation, (Jan 1983): 23–43.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_2Robert S. Barcikowski Statistical Power with Group Mean as the Unit of Analysis, Journal of Educational Statistics 6, no.33 (Nov 2016): 267–285.https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006003267Daniel L. Stufflebeam, William J. Webster An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2, no.33 (Jun 2016): 5–20.https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737002003005Daniel L. Stufflebeam, William J. Webster An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation, (Jan 1980): 23–43.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6675-8_2Leigh Burstein Chapter 4: The Analysis of Multilevel Data in Educational Research and Evaluation, Review of Research in Education 8, no.11 (Jun 2016): 158–233.https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X008001158Thomas Kellaghan, George F. Madaus, Ernest A. Rakow Within-school variance in achievement: School effects or error?, Studies in Educational Evaluation 5, no.22 (Jan 1979): 101–107.https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(79)90011-7R. S. Soar Problems in Analyzing Process-Product Relationships in Studies of Teacher Effectiveness, Journal of Education 160, no.33 (Jul 2018): 96–116.https://doi.org/10.1177/002205747816000306ERNEST A. RAKOW, PETER W. AIRASIAN, GEORGE F. MADAUS ASSESSING SCHOOL AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS: ESTIMATING TEACHER LEVEL EFFECTS, Journal of Educational Measurement 15, no.11 (Mar 1978): 15–21.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1978.tb00052.xGary J. Anderson, Herbert J. Walberg, Wayne W. Welch Curriculum Effects on the Social Climate of Learning: A New Representation of Discriminant Functions, American Educational Research Journal 6, no.33 (Jun 2016): 315–328.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006003315