1 / 20

Evaluation of CAT/5

5. Evaluation of CAT/5. Wanda Clarke Tom Neumann Cece Schwennsen Diana Weis. CAT/5. Name : California Achievement Test, Fifth Edition (CAT/5) 4 Forms: Complete Battery A and B Survey A and B Publisher : Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 1993. COST. Individual Booklets by grade level

wayde
Download Presentation

Evaluation of CAT/5

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 5 Evaluation of CAT/5 Wanda Clarke Tom Neumann Cece Schwennsen Diana Weis

  2. CAT/5 • Name: California Achievement Test, Fifth Edition (CAT/5) • 4 Forms: • Complete Battery A and B • Survey A and B • Publisher: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 1993

  3. COST • Individual Booklets by grade level • $1.80-$2.82 Ave $2.50 • Answer Sheets • $1.20-$2.12 Ave $1.60 • Full Battery of ALL Tests • $78.60 / 30 • Individual Tests • $18.00 / 25

  4. Nature of Test • Purpose: this test is designed to evaluate students knowledge and achievement in the basic skills taught in schools in the United States.

  5. Population: • Level K……….K.0-K.9 (87 min.) • Level 10………K.6-1.6 (88 min.) • Level 11………1.6-2.2 (217 min.) • Level 12………1.6-3.2 (292 min.) • Level 13………2.6-4.2 (330 min.) • Level 14 -21/22 3.6-12.9 (330 min)

  6. Content and Appropriateness: • Areas measured: • reading • language arts • spelling • mathematics, study skills, science,and social studies.

  7. Content and Appropriateness: • Methods of Assessment • Selected response • Target to be assessed • Knowledge and understanding • Reasoning proficiency

  8. Norms/standards: • Percentile Ranks • Stanine • Grade Equivalents • Norm Curve Equivalents • Anticipated Achievement Score

  9. Standardization Sample: • Size: 261 public schools and 112 private (Catholic or Non-Public) • Fall: 109825 students K-12 • Winter: 4161 students. • Representation: enough information to fit test to district needs

  10. Procedures: • School ID • Secondary • Elementary • K-5, K-6, K-8, 7-8 • 94% of schools responded to demographic survey

  11. Schools identified by region • New England & Mid-East • Great Lakes & Plains • Southeast • Southwest & West

  12. Schools identified by community size: • Rural (farm or non-farm) • Town • Small City-Suburban • City-Urban • Large City-Inner City

  13. Reliability • Total battery ranged from 0.94 - 0.98 • Subtests had a median range of 0.88 • Spring standardizations were higher. • CAT/5 uses a newer measure of the KR-20. • Reliability is high when a large # are involved and full battery is used.

  14. Validity • Criterion-reference Scores • 75% - students have mastery • 50% - students have partial mastery • ¯ 50% - is non-mastery • These % vary considerably based

  15. Content • CTB used a broad comprehensive sample of curriculum materials from across the country to develop items.

  16. Reviewer’s Comments • by Anthony J. Nitko, Professor of Education, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

  17. Reviewer’s Comments • Items & Content • Content Recency & Emphasis • Norming and Scaling • Validity and Reliability • Summary

  18. Group Summary • Pros • 95% of students complete test within time allowed • Broad measurement of curriculum materials • Format optimal for Knowledge & Understanding and Reasoning Proficiency targets

  19. Group Summary • Pros • Parallel test forms • Essay form available • Entire battery score provides accurate measurement of student achievement

  20. Group Summary • Cons • OUTDATED - created using 1980’s curriculum • Norming done in spring and fall of 1991 • Subtest scores are not as accurate as complete battery • Student scores in the mid-range are more accurate than extreme scores

More Related