د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B64

certain pupils not sit the test. A correct interpretation of data feedback is especially necessary
for adequate instrumental use.
The literature reports several preconditions that have to be met in order for a score
report to be used. The contents of the feedback reports should be perceived as relevant, useful
and non-threatening (Schildkamp & Teddlie, 2008; Van Petegem & Vanhoof, 2007; Visscher,
2002). Furthermore, the feedback must be reliable, valid, and delivered in a timely manner
(Schildkamp & Teddlie, 2008; Visscher, 2002; Visscher & Coe, 2003). Moreover, Vanhoof et
al. (2011) suggest that the confidence of users in their own ability to use data feedback from a
SPFS, and their attitude towards feedback, positively affect the degree to which users are
willing to invest in the use of data feedback.
5.2.2 The Interpretation of Data Feedback
The literature distinguishes between data and information (Davenport & Prusak, 1998;
Mandinach & Jackson, 2012). Data are objective facts that do not carry meaning. By
interpreting data, these facts can be transformed into information—for example, by
summarising and computing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Subsequently, information can be
turned into usable knowledge, which is the basis for a decision about an action. The impact of
the action is evaluated using new data; this way, a feedback loop is created (Mandinach &
Jackson, 2012). Clear score reports can support users in making correct interpretations
(Hattie, 2009; Ryan, 2006; Zenisky & Hambleton, 2012).
Although the literature about score report interpretation and/or misinterpretation is
scarce, supporting users in interpreting the reports has recently been addressed as an
important aspect of validity (Hattie, 2009; Ryan, 2006). This is especially relevant when test
results inform important decisions. An incorrect interpretation can lead to inadequate
decisions and, subsequently, inadequate actions. In education, this could mean that learning
deficits are not signalled, whereupon the pupil does not get the needed support or additional
instruction. In addition, it could mean that weak spots in the effects of instruction are not
identified. In other words, whenever the test results are interpreted incorrectly, instruction
cannot be tailored to the needs of the pupils. Various researchers have recently highlighted the
lack of research about the interpretation of score reports (Hattie, 2009; Ryan, 2006;
Verhaeghe, 2011; Zenisky & Hambleton, 2012). In addition, the crucial role of test developers
in supporting correct interpretations through clear score reports as an aspect of validity has
been emphasised (Hambleton & Slater, 1997; Hattie, 2009; Ryan, 2006; Zenisky &
Hambleton, 2012). Ryan has emphasised the need to take into account the characteristics of
target groups, because, for example, not all users are equally able to interpret statistical data.
5.2.3 Standards for Score Reports
The standards for score reports described in The Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing (AERA, et al., 1999) are of a general nature. These guidelines are
specifically targeted at validity issues; validity is described as ―the degree to which evidence
and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests‖ (p. 9).
They comprise nine standards that apply to score reports. From these standards, it can be
concluded that the test developer has a certain amount of responsibility for valid interpretation
and use of the test results. This responsibility is shared with the target group to which the

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني