were not always complete and clear.
The extent to which the reports from the Computer Program LOVS are correctly
interpreted. On average, the respondents (N = 97) gained a score of 21 on the questionnaire
(SD = 8.15), which corresponds with an average percentage correct of 61.76%. This number
is well below the standard that was set, namely a score of 29 or 85% correct. Only 13
respondents gained a score of 29 or higher (29.89%); 10 of these were internal support
teachers and three were principals. This means that of the internal support teachers, 23.26%
realised the expected minimum score. Of the principals, 17.65% reached the expected
minimum score. The expected minimum score of 29 was not realised by any of the respondent
teachers. The highest score was 28 (n = 2).
Interpretations by various user groups. In Table 5.1, the scores gained by the
various groups of respondents are displayed. The score is used as the dependent variable in
the analyses as a measure of interpretation ability.
Table 5.1 shows that there is a considerable amount of variation between the total
score of teachers, internal support teachers, and principals. The results show that the average
score for teachers (n = 37) was 17.78. This suggests that of all user groups, teachers struggle
most in interpreting the reports of the Computer Program LOVS. The differences between the
total scores of the various groups were analysed using ANOVA. The results suggest that there
is a significant difference amongst the groups: F(2, 94) = 6.38, p = .003. Post-hoc analysis
using the Bonferroni method shows that the total scores of teachers were significantly lower
than those of internal support teachers (average difference = ‒6.17, p = .002).
The differences between the scores of teachers and school principals (average
difference = ‒2.75, p = .685) and the scores of internal support teachers and school principals
(average difference = 3.42, p = .376) were not significant. These results suggest that teachers
are significantly less able to interpret the reports generated by the Computer Program LOVS
than internal support teachers.