Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige
Autor/inn/en | Bullock, Lyndal M.; und weitere |
---|---|
Institution | North Texas State Univ., Denton. |
Titel | A Re-Examination of the Behavioral Categories of Seven Behavior Rating Instruments: A Conceptual Analysis. A Final Research Report. |
Quelle | (1988), (95 Seiten)
PDF als Volltext |
Sprache | englisch |
Dokumenttyp | gedruckt; online; Monographie |
Schlagwörter | Behavior Disorders; Behavior Rating Scales; Classroom Observation Techniques; Elementary Secondary Education; Item Analysis; Standardized Tests; Student Evaluation; Test Interpretation; Test Reliability; Test Theory; Test Validity |
Abstract | Prompted by the increased use of behavior rating instruments in educational environments and evidence of confusion over the interpretation of labels designating behavior clusters, the present two-phase study analyzed 410 specific items contained in seven behavior rating instruments and investigated whether these items could be intuitively sorted into predetermined common categories. In Phase 1, there was a general lack of agreement by 354 educational personnel on the placement of 192 items (47%) within four predetermined categories of behavior (aggressive/acting out, irresponsible/inattentive, socially withdrawn, fearful/anxious). In phase 2, a panel of seven experts participated in an item review process of these 192 items. The addition of two new categories (physiological deficits and information/thought processing deficits) substantially improved the agreement rate. Among conclusions drawn is that the behavioral categories identified for this study are sufficiently broad to accommodate a wide range of behaviors, yet specific enough to be useful to practitioners. Results lend support to the call for greater uniformity among behavior rating instruments. The bulk of the document consists of appendices which provide detailed data on response percentages, frequencies, and placement of items by behavioral category. References are included. (JW) |
Erfasst von | ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC |
Update | 2004/1/01 |