Citation
The effect of physical test format modifications

Material Information

Title:
The effect of physical test format modifications on the performance of third grade mildly handicapped and normal students
Creator:
Beattie, Susan, 1949-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 108 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational standards ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
Ions ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Reporting standards ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Special needs students ( jstor )
Standard deviation ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Children with disabilities -- Education (Elementary) -- Florida ( lcsh )
Competency-based educational tests -- Florida ( lcsh )
City of Orlando ( local )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 81-85).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan Beattie.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
028557394 ( ALEPH )
ABU5967 ( NOTIS )
09304577 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EFFECT


PHYSICAL


TEST


FORMAT MODIFICATIONS


ON THE


PERFORMANCE


OF THIRD GRADE


AND NORMAL








BY

SUSAN B


MILDLY


STUDENTS


HANDICAPPED


EATTIE


A DISSERTATION


OF THE


OF THE


UNIVERSITY


REQUI REMENTS


PRESENTED


FLORIDA


DEGREE


GRADUATE


PARTIAL
F DOCTOR


COUNCIL


FULFILLMENT


PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY


FLORIDA


1982
















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Bliz


ard of


Buffalo,


York,


inflicted much


hard-


ship on many


area


citizens.


Fortunately,


a more


i ti ve


effect on


family


became


fundamental


impetus


for our moving


warm and


sunny


climate.


move


to Gainesville,


Florida,


brought several


wonderful


people


into


lives,


for which


we will


always


thankful


These


individuals


have


made


five


years


at the


university memorable,


some


will


have


an everlasting


effect on


future.


deepest


thank


so many,


especially


to my


chairman


Algo


zzine.


know


to love


him.


nai vete and


optimism are


refreshing


talent


awe i


nspiring,


personal i ty


enviable


Thank


personifying


profe


ssional


expert


standard


toward


which


we all


should


tri ve.


Your


friendship,


family


understanding,


are the


best


kindness


will


to Kate,


always


thanks


remembered


haring


with


us for so


long.


committee


members,


thank


your


support,


encourage-


ment,


tolerance.


special


thank


extended


Cathy Morsink.


wonderful


example


of how


a competent


talented woman











sense


of humor


When


life


becomes


difficult


we will


remember


"pulled


hamstrings"


, smile


forge


sincere


thanks


are al


extended


to those


individuals


provided


access


population


special


students


assi


data


coll


section.


Without


help


of Maryel en


Maher


, Rosalie


Boone,


Jani


Maureen


Gale


tudy would


have


never


come


fruition


Thank


from


bottom of my heart.


very wonderful


friend


, Gayl


McBride


Chip


Voorneveld,


could


never express


how mu


your caring and


concern


have


meant


are so special


appreciate


times


that


were


there


for me.


enormous


amount of


thanks


friend


world


best


typi


Cantara.


will


always


respe


t and admire


ability


high


standards.


to my


family


"thank


you"


seems


hardly


enough


done.


To my


parents


will


always


grateful


your


nstilling


philosophy


of "you


can do


anything you


your mind


gave me


strength


to endure


many


difficult


times.


son,


Matthew


thank


being


wonderful


baby


never


staying with


grandparents


hitters


, neighbors


friends


so that


could


tudy


write.


appreciate


love


so much.


Unfortunately


there


are no express


ions


thank


love


great enough


extend


v ..


best


friend


, my


love


..II. I


husband


John.


.... U


.


.


V


--










there.


Your


professional


expert


was invaluable


certainly


made my


road


easier


travel


Thank


coming


into


life


bringing


a happiness


very


people


are fortunate


enough


experience.


last


, but


definitely not


least


spec


thank


was responsible


for my


initially


undertaking


this


degree.


never


forget


you.















TABLE


CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


ABSTRACT


viii


CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


S. a 1


Current


Interest


in Minimum


Competency


Programs


. 2


Minimum


Competency


Education


Reaction


Framework


to Minimum


ting


Within a


Competency


Competency


testing


a S S S a a 5


Impact of MCT on

Test Modification


Handicapped


Individual


Competency


Testing


Statement of


Problem


S S S S S S S S S 51


Purpose

Related


Questions .


Limi stations .

Delimitations .

Definition of Terms .


Summary


CHAPTER


REVIEW


LITERATURE


Background .

Verified Test Modifications


S S S S S a a a a S S a S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S


Print


w w









Physical


Layout


Administration


..... 0. 26


0 0 0 0 .0. 0 0 0 .0 28


Answer


Format


. 0 0 0 0 0 0 29


.Unverified


Modification


Increased


Example/


kill


Ratio


Characteristic


Need


Handi capped


Individual


Current


Research


in MCT Modifications


Individual


Handicapped


tate


Research


tudie


Uni ver


Florida


Research


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40


umnary


S 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42


CHAPTER


METHODS


PROCEDURES


Method


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4


Experimental


Procedures


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 48


Material


. 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


getting


Variables


Hypotheses


Data Analy


Summary


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0


CHAPTER


RESULTS


0 0 0 054


CHAPTER


ION AND CONCLUSION


scuss


ion of


Findings


0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7


Test


Form Analyses


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 7


Category


Analy


..


A










Implications

Conclusions

REFERENCES


* S S S S

* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

* S S S S S 5 0 S S S S S S S S S S


APPENDIX A


ELIGIBILITY


CRITERIA


PARENT


PERMIT


SS


SAMPLE


TEST


STANDARD


S S S S S 596


SAMPLE


TEST


--MODIFIED


MEAN


PERFORMANCE


CORE


CATEGORY,


RACE,


S S S S S S S S S S S S 0 5 5 S S S S S S S


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH


S S S S 0 5 5 0












Abstra


ssertation


e University
Requirements


rese


Florida


nted


Degree


to the


Partial


Graduate


Fulfillment


Council


Doctor of Philosophy


EFFECT


PERFORMANCE


ICAL


TEST


FORMAT MODIFICATION


OF THIRD GRADE MILDLY


NORMAL


usan


Augu


HANDICAPPED


ON THE


STUDENT


Beattie

, 1982


Chairman


Major


Robert


Department


Algoz
special


Education


Test


are an


integral


part


educational


process.


view


of Public


Law 94-142,


Education


Handicapped


Children Act,


becomes


crucial


that diagnostic


instruments


are valid


ul tural ly


fair,


unbia


Caution mu


exerci


to i


nsure


that


targeted


results


behaviors


should


are the one


reflect cognitive


actually

ability


being


assessed.


individual


ability


an effort


to make


tests


fair


handicapped


populations


such


modification


as head


pointers,


braille


type,


alterations


admini


tudy,


tration


however


getting

been d


have


i rected


been


nstituted.


toward


mildly


Li ttle


handicapped


tematic

student


or phy


ical


test


item


format modifications.


current


tudy


investi-









modification


included


alterations


line


length


inclu


example


answer


use of boldface


bubble


type


arrangement


emphasis


items


, placement


a hierarchy


progressive


difficulty


Eighty


students


were


randomly


cted


from

ally


four


population


handicapped


normal


, learning


educable mentally


abled


retarded


(EMR)


emotion-

tudents.


students


were


matched


within


each


category


according


to reading


ability


then


randomly


assigned


either


modified


or the


tand-


test


group.


Data


were


analyzed


at a


level


i gni ficance


results


indicated


that


overall


total


test


scores


were


ignifi-


cantly


were


higher


no s


on the


significant


modified


differences


test


than


between


standard


test


form


test.


scores


There


four out


five modification


subtests.


Performance


scores


on the


example


subtest


however,


were


significantly


higher


on the


modified


version


than


on the


standard


test


version.


Performance


scores


emotion-


ally


handicapped


student


were


tati


tically


similar


as were


scores


normal


students.


students


consi


tently


scored


lower


than


other


categories


students.


post


analysis


mndi


ated


that modifications


physical


test


format may


have


some


merit


in mastery


level


situation


Mean


performance


scores


on the


modified


test


surpas


sed ma


stery


criteria


percent of


subskill


section


failed


students


taking


(LD)


(EH),


J









modification


handicapped


appeared


students


have


than


a greater


on that


effect


normal


on the


student


performance


Continued


research


area


f minimum competency


test modifications


appears


warranted.
















CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


Ameri ca


spends


billion


annually


on education,


admin-


sisters


over


50 million


tests.


result


such


enormous


expen-


diture


time


money,


one may


assume


that America


a fully


literate


society.


Unfortunately


appear


untrue.


congressional


youths


survey


are functional


revealed


that


ill iterates


percent


(Pabian,


-year


1979)


Another


-old


survey


public


1973


Department of Health


Education,


Wel fare


(HEW)


supported


these


data


tated


that


an estimated


one million


American


youths


between


ages


can not


read


at a


fourth


grade


level


can therefore


labeled


illiterate


(cited


McClung


1977).


eldyke


Algo


zzine


(198


cited


Copperman


report


that


America


academic


performance


standards


have


shown


a marked


decline


since


mid-


1960


Today


average
about a


college


current


eighth
seventh


well a
e admi


high


average


(Copperman,


grader
grader


Ls the
ssion


school
high


1978,


read


average
s tests
graduate


school


appro
ten y


ixth


only


imately


as well


ears


grader of


about


attain


graduate


computes


period


that


a quarter


level


early


recorded


1960


. 15)


,


w










reported


that


"there


growing


evidence


that


shifts


policy,


expectation


behavior within


school


themselves


have


contrib-


uted


documented


decline


writing


kill


aptitude


test


S co res


" (Berry,


1979,


. 167)


performance


level


school


been


attributed


to the


amount


on task


learning


time


According


to Berry


(1979)


students


tend


to be


on task


appro


ximately


only


percent of


tructional


. Th


impact


tati


percent of


magni field


total


school


when


one real i


actually


that


devoted


only


to 1


60-70


warning.


addition


enrolled


there


core


appears


academic


a decline


subjects


number


increase


students


number of


optional


courses


available


erry,


1979


Copperman,


1978)


Public


appear


critic


rigid


justified


students


surveillance


graduate


our school


after


would


year


education


are truly


unable


read


write.


Even


with


acknowledge-


ment


that


there


are other


variable


as home


, family


community


in fl uence


that


contribute


an individual


achievement


potential,


it would


appear


that


our


school


must


till


assume


primary


respon


ibility


graduating


illiterates


(Pinkney,


1979)


Current


Interest


Minimum


Competency


Programs


Educator


admini


strators


, legal


consul tants


, parents,










the gradual


decline


hola


Aptitude


Test


(SAT)


scores


(Copperman,


1978)


rece


litigation


courts


(Donohue


Copiague


Union


Free


school


trict,


1978


Peter W


Franci


Unified


hool


trict,


1976)


an effort


to reduce


illiteracy


tati


eliminate


ibility


members


future


communi ty


litigation


have


many


focused


educators


attention


concerned


on minimum


competency

component


component of


programs.


drawn t

the more


Al though

he most a

global c


the minimum


attention

concept of


competency


ting


(MCT)


recently,


competency


based


education


(CBE).


Minimum


Based


Comp


etency


Education


testing


Framework


Within


A Competency


Competency


education


(CBE)


comprised


five major


com-


ponents.


They


include


establi


hment


educational


objectives


development of


instructional


process


Cc)


competency


ting,


pro vi


remedial


instruction,


program evaluation


reconceptuali


action


(Watt


, 1979)


ugge


that


five


components


interdependent


incorporation


t one


component


wouldtbe punitive


student.


Educator


advocate


competency


based


education


foresee


process


that


will


ensure


acqui


ition


fundamental


knowl edge.


They


contend


that


attainment


standard


set of


kill










system.


Poss


ibly


competency


based education


could


facilitate


America


effort


to reestabli


priority


high


esteem of


educational


tern.


curri


ulum objectives


tructional


process


within


are means


ured


competency


testing


scores


competency te


criterion-


referenced


and measure


student


performance


relative


specified


set of


behaviors.


They


differ


from


norm-referenced


ests


that


they


compare


student


performance


an establi


standard.


Norm


referenced


tests


criminate


between


individual


whereas


criterion


referenced


tests


can be


regarded


as the


best


mndi


cation


of what


being


taught


room


(Denninger


, 1979)


testing


tingui


those


students


need


additional


remedial


instruction


also


provides


teac


hers


admini


strators


with


feedback


on the


effe


tiveness


f the


teaching method


being


employed


appropriateness


program.


goal


competency


testing


improve


programs


not to


fail


students


, point an


accusing


finger


students


or teacher


withhold


how well


diploma


student


Instead,


prepared


allows


to move


school


from


personnel


grade


to document


to grade


asce


rtain


those


specific


kill


high


school


graduate


brings


our working


society


contrast


current


trend


where


only requirement


graduation


time


spent


school


completion


an establi


hed number


courses.










According


Popham


(1981)


nearly


states


have


established minimum


competency


testing


programs


covering


basic


skill


reading,


writing,


and mathematics


Seventeen


those


states


have


also


establi


competency


testing


as a


requ irement


high


school


graduation


(Neill,


1979).


Reaction


Minimum


Competency


testingg


itive effects.


According


Popham


(1981)


there


are s


several


positive


attributes


to the


program


Pinkney


(1979)


identified


itive


character


specific c


Florida


program;


Both


student


teachers


have


been


provided


with


list


exactly which


kill


are to


mastered


students


a time-


table


accompli


hing


these


objectives.


Ideally,


basic


kill


criteria a


teachers,


are decided


admini


upon


trators,


diverse


professor


group


, parents,


individual


employers,


including


other


profess


ionals.


There


been


a renewed


interest


n learning


school


Cognitive


devel opment


returned


primary


justification


the exi


tence


school


uppl ementary


frill


have


been


minimized


educating,


children


become


highest priority.


program


created


a new awareness


among


parents


regard


their


children


s education


real


zation


that


their


children will


requi red


to demon


trate


mastery


basic


kill










There


been


a reorganization


greater


utilization


human


resources


throughout


state


based


on the


needs


student.


pecificity


efficiency


purpose


performance


contributed


f teaching


personnel


greater


Program


planning


education


procedures


establi


admini


strators


have


hown


marked


improvements.


tandardized


measure


students


against


students


contrast,


measures


mastery


kills.


character


can be


used


regroup


students


skill


level


rather


than


age,


permit


report


student


card


learn


based


at h


/her own


on continuums,


pace.


allow


executed with


each


caution,


these


changes


could


essen


student


feeling


failure


enhance


chance


success.


Pabian


(1979)


noted


that


early


quality


teaching


urban


ghetto


was relatively


low,


with


percent


high


school


graduate


being


ssified


functional


illiterates.


Pygmalion


effect


dominated


teachers


rving


students


having


difficulty


learning


academic


attributed


difficulty


socio-


economic


factors


topped


trying


teach


impossible


Pinkney


(1979)


feel


program


Florida


counteracted


Pygmalion


effect.


He maintains


that


teachers


expectation


level


students


increased


that


students


are working


harder


to learn.


Negative


effects.


other


hand


there


are educators










negative


issues


which


surround


included


following


discuss


There


a fear


that minimum


compete


become


maximum competence


Critic


infer


that


advanced


courses


as Calculu


Chemi


stry,


Literature,


World


tory may


eventually


eliminated


from


school


curriculum.


There


concern


that a


concentrated


emphasis


on basic


academic


kill


reduce


intere


other


sciplines,


such


music,


art,


ical


education.


There


also may


negative


tigma


associated


with


those


students


requiring


remedial


asses


. As


consequence


some


opponents


of MCT


fear


students


become


courage


at the


prospect


failing


choose


to drop


out of


school.


Some


educator


fear


there will


an abu


use of


test


results


Improper


use of


scores


can s


egregate


group


students,


contribute


poor


self


-concepts,


as a


barrier


future


employment.


Other


individual


are concerned


that


movement


been


implemented


too quickly


without nece


ssary


precautions.


McClung


(1977),


an education


cons


ultant


taff


attorney


Center


Education,


Inc.,


several


legal


educational


issues


that may


hazardous


to both


students


school


These


issues


include


potential


racial dis


crimi nation,


remediation










period,


as a


requirement


for graduation,


negligence


sues.


McClung


esses


fact


that


these


issues


are merely


potential


problems


that warrant


further


inspection


cons


idera-


tion


pol i


y makers.


Impact of MCT


on Handicapped


Individual


hand capped


individual


protect


from


unfair


criminatory


practice


Federal


Constitution,


various


statutes,


regulation


Fourteenth


Amendment


titution


guarantees


individual


equal


protection


Section


504 of


Vocational


Rehabilitation


Act of


1973


. 93-


prohibits


crimi nation,


denial


nefits,


or the exclu


a handicapped


person


from an


educational


program or opportunity


solely


on the


handicap.


handicapped


individual


also


pro-


tected


from


unfair


educational


tices


, especially with


regard


assessment,


provi


Public


142,


Education


Handicapped


Children


1975


(Abeson


ttel,


1977)


These


provide


fundamental


basi


that


ensures


right of


handicapped


student


participate


/her maximum


ability


in any


and all


educational


program


approach a


tate


adopt


accommodate


handicapped


student


in MCT


must


fulfill


requirement


ting


legi


lation.


McClung


Pullin


(1978)


state


there


are four


areas


legal


*MI mAwS~L


rflnra n +n.+n ,w64. n. -f.m 4 n J .a- a..


~.,~:,,,,,~


AA~lll~lr: A IYI


1H


*A


rC










individual


standards,


determinations,


differential


differential


assessment


diplomas


procedures


Exemption


handicapped


students.


extent


handi


capped


students


should


requi red


held


exempt


from)


competency


test


as a


prerequi


high


school


diploma


important


concern


area


of MCT


National


ociation


tate


Directors


special


Education


(1979)


indicated


that


state


currently


requi ring


competency


testing


prior


high


school


graduation,


require


or selected


categories


handicapped


students


take


pecifi


the competency


police


remaining


regarding


handicapped


states


student.


have


These


results


(1980)


are congruent


that


with


the majority of


survey


states


finding


have


Smith


establi


Jenkin


or finalized"


their


position


regarding


usion


or exclusion


of handicapped


students


from


programs


Ewing


(1979)


refers


to 1


class


ification


handicapped


individual


peech


impaired,


mentally


retard


, deaf,


hard


of hear-


ing,


ually


handi


capped,


eriou


y emotionally


turbed,


ortho-


pedically


impaired


other


health


impaired


deaf-blind


mul ti


-handicapped,


learning


disabled)


indicates


that


"heterogeneity


handicapped


population


prohibits


reas


enable


expe


station


that handicapped


students


either


ystematical ly


included


or exc


luded


from competency


test


requirements"


. 115)


For example


it would










confinement


wheel chair,


realistic


fair


exempt


profoundly


retarded


individual.


Individualized


determination


would


appear


that


no uniform


approach


hand capped


children would


equitable when


types


severity


hand


apping


condition


considered


(Denninger


, 1979;


Ewing,


1979; McClung


Pullin,


1978)


example,


attempt


establ i


general


policy


that


would


equitable e


both


mi dly


peech


impaired


student and


eriou


y emotionally


turbed


indivi-


dual


would


appear


impo


ssibl


consequence


it would


seem most


appropriate


that


deci


regarding


student


participation


in MCT


programs


be made on


an individual


handicapped


students,


however,


they


houl d


have


desire,


opportunity


school


participate


that


fails


the MCT


to provide


program


that


option may


violation of


(McClung,


1979)


process


individualized


an opportunity


become m


determination

ore aware of


also


the wide


provide


range of


educators

ability


with

and


achievement


level


within


handi


capped


population.


Differential


diplomas


standard


Another


ssue


affecting


handicapped


population


awarding


f differential


diploma


the e


tabl i


terizes


hment of


diff


rental


differential


diploma


standard


as being


McClung


tingui


(1979)


able


charac-


color


shape


, or wording


from a


standard


diploma.


Differential


standard


are usually


tringent


than


standard


required


rnonk


. The










decide


handicapped


which


three gen


student.


Some


approach


handicapped


would


student


best


will


each


have


problems


complying with


standard


procedure


obtaining


standard


diploma


Other


students


need


differential


standard


order


earn a


standard


diploma.


could


accomplished


using


student


Individualized


Education


Plan


(IEP)


design-


a modified


comp


tency


program


that


would


meet


special


need


capability


student.


Other


students may


so severely


handicapped


that


differential


diplomas


differential


standard


would


the most appropriate


alternative.


These


three option


assure


handicapped


individual


property


right


obtaining


the most appropriate diploma.


This


becomes


critical


light of


Smith


Jenkins


' (1980)


warning


that


ssuance


differential


diploma


or certificate


attendance


could


become


source of


tj gma


handicapped


individual


According


Department of


Labor


report,


high


school


diploma


required


entry


into


virtually


(Safer,


1980).


Differential


assessment


procedures.


final


issue


reaching


implication


not only


success


the minimum competency


testing movement,


educational


principles


legal


equality


definition,


Many mildly


difficulty


handicapped


taking


individual


tandardi


have,


almo


ts (Smith


Jenkin


1980)


w can s


school


rsonnel


ctiv


ly mea


sure


level


of knowledge











handicapping


condition


(Gearheart


& Willenberg,


1974


, Gearheart


, & Gearheart,


1978


McCarthy


, 1980;


Salvia


sseldyke,


1978)


For example,


traditionally most


competency


testing


programs


have


been


restricted


paper


pencil


tests.


Educators


must


able


to verify


that


type


assessment


accurately measures


competence


being


taught


fulfill


standard


test


reliability


validity


Otherwi


becomes


legal


responsibility


policy makers


eliminate


potential


crimi nation


against


handicapped


individual


devi


differ-


ential


assessment


procedure


t Modification


Competency


Testing


Research


limited


concerning


nature.


test modification


In addition


appears


paucity


to be


data


relative


studies,


there


also


been a


tendency


narrowly


restrict


target


popula-


tion


adults,


ually


impaired


physically


handicapped.


Traditional


t modification


hese


students


have


been


braille or


enlarged


print,


use of


head


pointer,


or an aide


to transcribe


answers.


est modification


the mildly


handicapped


student


have


typically


been


"procedural"


or environmental


nature.


Example


uch modifications


include


reduction


group


change


admini


trati ve


setting,


or a


waiver of


time


limit


Resear


a .


*- _


..


.. I I r


1


1 .


,











Florida.


Examples


such modification


include


print


ize,


audio


support,


grouping


test


i tems


progre


ssive


hierarchy,


methods


recording


answers


, adaptation


line


length,


inclusion


example


, and


real


representations.


Statement


Problem


There


is much


controver


y regarding


the educational


practice of


minimum competency


ti ng.


Frequently


debated


issues


normal


student


include


legal


ramifications,


minority


right


, comparability


curricula,


implementation


procedures


handicapped


learners,


however,


there


are additional


problems


that may


take


precedence


over


these


issues.


performance of


handicapped


non-handicapped


student


will


likely


be different


assumed


that


difference


students


' handicap


circumstances


sting.


However,


failure


cons


ider


possible


sources


performance


differences


(other


than


student abilities)


be a


major


source of


assess-


ment.


Such


factors


as inappropriate


cons


truction


or item


election,


as well


poor


as problems


performance of


the general


ting


exceptional


procedures,


child


contribute


inaccurate


assess-


ment of hi


/her


fundamental


content


know edge.


Purpose


purpose


tudy was


investigate


effect


w










emotional ly


handicapped)


normal


students.


The effects


five modification


were measured


within


three


groups


of mildly


handicapped


students


one group


nonhandicapped


learners.


independent


variabi


tudy were


type


stud


type.


students


were


character


as normal


, learning


abled


emotionally


handicapped


(EH)


or educable mentally


retarded


(EMR)


criteria


used


termination of


such


mildly


handi


capping


conditions


as LD,


EMR are


in Appendix A


Tests


comprised


standard


and modified


formats


were


used


the modifications


included


the grouping


similar


items


hierarchy


progre


ssive


difficulty,


arrangement of


line


length


unju


tified manner,


introduction


exampi


direction


each


kill


change


, (d)


placement of


answer


bubbles


right of


The dependent


each


foil


use of boldface


variable


tudy was


type


score


emphasis.


indi


eating


student


performance


on the


total


test


or selected


items.


Related


tions


This


test con


tudy was


stru


designed


tion modifications


inve


tigate


on the


the effect


rformanc


ical


selected


lemen-


tary


school


aged


children.


peci fi


ally,


following


ques


tion


were


addre


sed:


. What


effect


test


item modification


have on


total


fltttCjttqbflyjMh,~i~ ,~.t .n4 1 ~J1 .. 4j "I


L


+nr


4-


(LD),


,


,,..,,~


A'A


r^











What


effect


unjustified


line


length


have


on the


test


performance of


mildly


handicapped


children


performance


normal


children


. What


effect


does


introduction


f exampi


direction


each


new s


kill


change


have


on the


test performance


of mildly


hand capped


children


performance


normal


children


What


effect


does


placement


answer


bubble


to th


right


foil


have on


test


performance


of mildly


handicapped


children


performance


f normal


children?


What


effect


does


use o


boldface


type


have


on test


performance of


mildly


handicapped


children


performance


normal


children


Limitations


tudy


incl uded


third


grade mildly


handicapped


regular


classroom


students


from Alachua


County


Orange


County


school


teams


north


-central


central


Florida,


respectively


handicapped

educable me


students


ntally


were


retarded


identi field


(EMR)


learning


emotionally


disabled (LD

handicapped


),


(EH)


according


Education


regulation


Appendix


Florida


result


State


f variation


Department


identifi-


cation


criteria a


between


tate


handicapped


students


this


tudy


not be


representative


other


handicapped


students


throughout












Delimitation


delimitation


grade


this


student


tudy


county


included


regulations


use of


criteria a


third


that


were


used


to identify


class


randomly


selected


sample


normal


handicapped


EMR)


student


Additional


delimitations


elementary


were


public


that


school


participant


from


citi


were


enrolled


Gaine


cted


ville


Orlando,


Florida.


Gaine


ville


school


included


Duval,


tephen


foster ,


Lake


Forest,


Prairie


View


Rawlings


Archer,


hell,


'and


Metcal fe


elementary


school


Participating


school


from


city


of Orlando


Cherokee


were


Fern


Pine


Creek,


Hill


Lake


, Ridgewood


Como,


Park


Chickasaw,


Hiawassee


Eccl


eston,


, Blankner,


Lake


Weston.


cities


Gainesville


Orlando


are located


Alachua


County


and Orange


County,


respectively


sample


population


representative


specifically north


southea


-central


tern


region


central


United


Florida.


A final


states


del imi ta-


tion


study was


measuring a


limited


that


sample


test


was a


behaviors


paper


These


pencil


behaviors


included


knowledge


fraction


means


urement,


coin


value,


picture


sequen-


alphabetical


ordering


and math


word


problems


example


subtest;


reading


comprehen


(not,


end,


pronoun


word


oppo


ites,


:











subtraction


ingle


two digit


numbers


hierarchy


subtest;


reading


comprehend


ion,


money word


problems,


number


word


problems


altered


line


length


subtest


Definition


of Terms


Boldface


type


darkened


print


that


draws


attention


itself


can be


used


items


requ hiring


additional


emphasis


educable


mentally


retarded


(EMR)


student


one who


mildly


impaired


development


intellectual


reflects


a reduced


adaptive


rate


behavior


of learning.


whose


measured


intelligence


an educable


mentally


retarded


student


generally


falls


between


three


standard


deviations


below


mean


assesse


adaptive


behavior


fall


below


cultural


expectations


(Florida


Department of


Education,


1979).


The emotionally


handicapped


(EH)


student


who,


after


receiv-


supportive


educational


assi


stance


counseling


services


available


students,


till


exhibits


persi


tent


consi


tent


severe


behavioral


disabilities


which


conse


quently


disrupt


student


learning


cess.


student


whose


inability


to achieve


adequate


academic


progress


or s


factory


interpersonal


relation-


cannot


attributed


primarily


to physical


sensory,


intellectual


deficit


(Florida


Department


Education


, 1979)


Inn1 .I-.-a.Hjn a t -n


It n\


#'1


~lrlh~


~,,~,,,


A YL A


SIR*


1


dpI











talking,


writing,


spelling,


or arithmetic.


They


include


learning


problems


which


are primarily


, hearing,


motor

or to


handicaps,


to mental


an environmental


retardation,


deprivation


to emotional


(Florida


Department


turbance,


of Education,


1979)


normal


student


one who


appears


functioning within


normal


limits


classroom


not eligible


additional


educational


services.


Unju


tified


line


are created


arrangement


type


uniform


spacing


so that


lines


are set according


to their natural


length.


opposed


to justifi


line


length


where


alterations


pacing


cause


every


line


at the


same


stance


from


right


-hand edge


paper


Justi field


lines


are traditionally


found


textbook


, newspapers,


magazines.


Summary


testing


appears


to be


an i


nescapable


phenomenon


today


educa-


tional


system.


Each


year over


50 million


tandardi


tests


admini


Algozz


tered


ine,


America


1982).


44 million


itive


school


benefit


children


gained


Ysse


from


Idyke


ting


include


provi


f additional


educational


support


services,


appro-


private


educational


placement,


curriculum modification


- a S


- S a


*


.. r


.r


*











response


format.


instances


test


results


accurately


represent


child


cognitive


proficiency


various


skill


areas


instead,


they may


repre


sent


inability


to handle


"standard"


timulus-response


purpose


ting


tudy was


format.


investigate


effect


physical


test


format modifications


on the


performance


of mildly


handicapped


(LD,


, EMR)


normal


student


third


grade.


modi fi cation


included


alterations


line


length,


grouping


similar


items


hierarchy


progress


difficulty,


an increased


ratio of


example


skill


change


placement of


answer


bubbles


use of


boldface


type


for emphasis


was anticipated


that


these


test modifications


would


result


differential


performance


scores.















CHAPTER


REVIEW


LITERATURE


following


literature


review


examines


nature


extent


current


knowledge


concerning


test modification


normal


and mildly


handicapped


(LD,


EMR,


population


specifically


ment of


addre


similar


sses


items


in a


print,


line


hierarchy


length,


progress


arrange-


ive difficulty,


ical


layout


(workspace,


cell


page)


admini


tration


(direction


increased


ratio


example e


kill


change),


answer


format


(separate


answer


heet,


answer


bubble


placement)


review of


current


modification


research


character


the

tic


area


need


of minimum


competency


handicapped


individual


included


Background


Information


review was


obtained


from


several


sources.


These


included


an ERIC


earch,


examination


f the


Current


Index


Journal


Education


(CIJE),


examination


Educational


Index.


riptor


utilized


ERIC


each










"testing the


handicapped,


" "learning


disabilities


(LD),


" "emotion-


ally


handicapped


(Ei),


" educablee


mentally


retarded


(EMR)


" "minimum


competency


ting,


" "reading achievement


" and


"print/type


Additional


sources


included


ssertation


stracts


International


card


catalog


system


Univer


Florida


library


(for


textbooks


on print


typography)


review


literature


revealed


that


area


physi


test


format modifications


, specifically


i gned


elementary mildly


handicapped


sample


children,


population


received


studied


little


attention


varied


researcher


students


(elemen-


tary,


secondary


college,


adult),


handicap


(normal


individual


ually


impaired,


, EMR),


degree


handicap


severe,


moderate,


and mild)


paucity


research


material


specific


type


educational


handicap


election


ri terion


inclusion


literature


review was


very


broad.


A deci


made


include


access


ible


information


regarding


test


cons


truction


principle


their


application.


information,


restricted


neither


handicap,


was collected


from


data


based


research,


survey


tudie


, authority


based


good


practi


expert


opinion.


Therefore


'literature


each


t modification


does


always


address


targeted


population


current


tudy.


fact


test modifi


action


f increa


ratio


example


skill


change


was not even


addressed


literature


Conse


quently,


tudie


v v


v


w











can be


category


as verified


are (a)


print


(boldface),


line


length,


item grouping,


(direction


answer


ical


format


layout,


booklet


admini


response


tration


answer


bubble


ement)


The one modification


that mu


assified


as unverified


increased


ratio


f exampi


kill


change.


rified


est Modifications


Print


relation


process


reading,


print


regarded


crucial


element


(Fonda


1968


Syke


1971


Tinker


, 1963a)


. Fonda


(1968)


ink,


tated


that


contrast of


actors


white


non-gl


as s


ossy


tyle of


paper


print,


ink,


blackness


appropriate


illumination


ilitate


reading.


Tinker


(1963b)


used


these


same


features


define


ability.


tated


that


ability was


affected


combination


brightness


paper,


darkness


ink,


thickness


trokes


letter


noted


that an


increase


ibility


can make


type


appear


larger


Accordi ng


toS


(1969)


(1971)


legibility


print


controlled


character


as quality,


, weight,


pacing.


Erdmann and


Neal


(1968)


tated


that


legibility


increases


with


height


resolution


character.


sence


serif


(the


horizontal


vertical


strokes


that are


attack


to the


- t


..


..


m










There


use o


Tinker


appears


upper


(1963a)


to be


lower


Craig


general


case


(1971)


consensus


letter


among


, italics


recommended


expert


regarding


boldface


use of


bol dfac


type.


type


as an effective mean


emphasis


zing


an important concept


or word,


or for drawing


attention


critical


element.


use of


lower


case


letters


preferred


upper


case


or italic


since


lower


case


can be


read more


quickly


(Tinker


Patter


1928


Tinker


, 1963a)


and more


easily


(Craig,


1971)


Craig


(1971)


contended


that


lower-


case


letters


facilitate


cess


reading


presence


greater


reader


cues.


receives more d


can be


seen


coding


pl i tting


from


lowercase


word


rhairl


horizontally


than


upperca


e WPHA.R


Sawyer


(1975)


ugge


that word


not be


typed


capital


(uppercase


better


Tinker


(1963a)


reported


that


capital


italic


retarded


speed


reading


Length


According


Tinker


(1963b)


normal


line width


character


although


vary


depending


on different


type


(Craig,


1971)


Line


length


an important effe


ct on


reading.


Lines


that are


hort can


break


phrases


logical


thought


unit


(Craig,


1971)


other


hand


, there


are also


disadvantage


line


that are


long.


excess


ively


long


lines


make


it diffi


to find


beginning


line


(Tinker,


1963a)


long


lines


r~n alrt% n d- fl I' r..~- 4~. men~


IC% 4~*. -VI Sn


Ir


1 n71\


A*


1










are usually


found


newspaper


magazines


books.


Para-


graph


with


tified


ngth


appro


ximate


with


parallel


sides.


pri nter


altering


pacing


are able


between


create


individual


even


letter


appearance


and word


Craig


(1971),


however


suggested


that


equal


pacing


between


words


create


greater


legibility.


equal


pacing


create


uneven


or "unju


tified"


line


length


lines


take on


a jagged


effect.


jagged


effect


texture,


adds


sual


intere


to the


page,


contribute


the ease of


reading,


reduce


difficulty of


locating


beginning


next


line


(Craig,


1971)


ults


tudy


hard


Reid


(1970)


indicated


that


retarded


children


demon


treated


increa


reading


rate


improved


reading


comprehen-


sion


scores


on reading


passage


that


were


unjustified


lines


with


double


paced


ading


, space


between


lines


print)


Leading


the amount of


white


space


between


line


f print.


another


factor


that


can alter


effectiveness


line


ngth


little


or too much


pacing


can be


distracting.


Craig


(1971)


tated


that


too much


leading


can cause


e a. drifting effect and


type


takes


grayish


cast


opposed


true


black)


. He


recommended


that


lead-


between


lines


be greater


than


pacing


between


individual


word


Appropriate


leading


also


response


ible


increa


ibility


on a


poor


page when

(Tinker,


paper


brightness


or the


reading


light


1963b)










there


leading


are certain


necessary


character


felt


that


that more


regulate


leading


amount


was needed with


letters


large


heights,


letter


trong


vertical


tress,


sans


serif


type


as oppo


serif


type,


longer


lines


very


small


type.


I tem Grouping


There


some


controversy


literature


(involving


normal


individual


with


regard


the grouping


like


items


presentation of


such


i teams


hi erarchy


progress


ive difficulty


Brenner


(1964),


irotnik


Wellington


(1974),


Marso


(1970)


ested


that


crambl ing


test


items


no effect on


test


scores


normal


individual


grade


college)


Holliday


Partridge


(1979)


Flaugher,


Mel ton,


and Meyer


(1968),


however,


ested


that


hierarchy


items


progress


from ea


hard


(rather


than


random or


descending


order)


improve


test


scores


normal


second


high


graders


school


high


students


school


Flaugher


students.


Melton,


tudy


and Meyers


5,000


(1968)


normal


supported


idea


that


reordering


test


item


does


create


There


appeared


no empirical


data


available


concerning


effect of


that


item


handicapped


grouping


on handicapped


children would


benefit t


students.


from


eemed,


grouping


however,


similar


i teams


Grouping


similar


items


would


i teams


within on


particular


LI itl


rq~ r U PU -,.


rnnc


tonrv


rniuil


il iminmto


-h rnnfsi


H


.


.


f' I i I


a


. man


IIII


. x


I











Ordering


items


from ea


lest


to most


difficult would


also


appear


there


help


no assurance


handicapped


an EMR or


student.


child


When

will


items are scrambled,

continue Dast the


difficult t


item


until


reaches


another


item


know


Educationally


handicapped


student


become


frustrated


with


difficult


problem


abandon


rest of


items.


combining


these


features,


grouping


ordering,


test


could


logical


reinforcing


handicapped


child.


discouragement a


child may


feel


as he


reaches


limit of


ability


on one


kill


could


counter


-balanced


successful


accompli


hment on


the easier


f the


next


kill


Physical


Layout


Cells


page.


since


educationally


handicapped


children


often


demonstrate


optimally


perception


be character


problem


limited


educational


well


materials


organized


should


timulus.


order


create


clean


uncluttered


page,


problems


enclosed within


cell


or box.


Cell


can be


created


extending


horizontal


lines


across


page


placing


vertical


line


down


center of


each


page.


These


line


create


well


balanced


page


that


resembles


ample


(Figure


Cell


other


tests


are incons


tent


ize due


t page


randomly


resemble e


placed


Sample


hori


ontal


(Figure


lines.


Os


example,


an imbalanced


some


page


be di


tracti ng


promote


confu


handicapped


child


1~-. L -


I, n i' ~L -. -I- ~ --.


Ir nnn\


1


A


- A


I -




























Sampl e


Well


Balanced


Page











Workspace.


There


also


limited


research


available


on thi


topic.


Provi


ion of workspace


(for math


reading


word


problems)


was investigated


in a


tudy


Major


Micha


(1975)


Their


research


indicated


that children


seventh


grade


cored


higher on


test


work


that


provided workspace.


pace may


tematically


Handicapped


logi


learners


ally work math


provided


with


reading


word


problems


rather


than


guess


answer


success


work


pace modification would


effectiveness


in encouraging


close


associated with


persuading


students


teacher


utili


the workspace.


Administration


Directions


procedures


Tests


often


require


children


read


comprehend


written


direction


independently


. Thi


assumes


that all


children


have


ability


to do


initial


can then


proceed


individual


test


items.


Unfortunately,


erroneous

readers d


assumption


emons tra te


for many


their


hand


cognitive


apped


individual


proficiency


can poor


on other


tasks


when


they


are unabi


decod


information


provided


direction


Consequently,


become critical


t direction


elements


general


assessment


admini


tration


process


procedure


esse


ntial


that


tests


are an


accurate measurement of


child


cognitive


ability


not of hi


ability


respond


test


format.


B -


.t, a. a iA~tan a.S I~s~ C I 2 --A---


-1 J.2 *.-


. n


mJ


Irur ri


RI1 k


r


k L


A LAA











task


are not attempting


task


that


unclear


attempt


to mea


sure


kill


ability


read,


procedure


York


(Clift,


1979)


, Virginia,


North


Carolina


1981


allow the math


read ng


section


the minimum


competency


test


to be


read


some


handicapped


students


while


Florida


allows


only


math and


writing


portion


read


handicapped


student


(Florida


Statute


.246


S 1979)


In addition


problems


decoding


direction


some


handicapped


students


also


Brannigan,


exhibit problem


Penner


(1978)


attention.


direction


tudy


were modified


Margolis,


children


who were


labeled


impul


ive.


t admini


strator


read


example


orally,


presented


logic


behind


choo


sing


correct


answer


estigators


examine


were


success


deliberately


teaching


logically


children


instead


reacting


new and


uncertain


i tuation


their


traditionally


habitual


impul


ive manner,


children


began


solve


tasks


ystematical ly


rationally.


Answer


Format


Within


booklet


response.


veral


tudi


support


pro-


cedure of


having


students


answer


directly


their


answer


booklet as


opposed


transferring


answers


separate


answer


heet.


Muller,


Calhoun,


Orling


(197


suggested


that


transfer


answers


a .- .- -* S I


L -- -


A =


-


SI


r I Ir


I i


~ I I 1


A










their


booklets


ratio


than on a


separate


answer


heet.


heets


Gaffney


were


Magui re


invalid


(1971)


use with


tated


normal


that


children


separate


answer


below fifth


grade.


Other


results


supporting


use o


f direct


response


test


booklet


were


stated


seyer


(1969)


normal


children


in grades


(1974)


with


normal


children


grades


, Majors


Clark


and Mi


hael


(1968)


(1975)


learner


normal


, and


seventh


Greenberg


eighth graders,


(1980)


handicapped


(EH,


EMR)


fourth


graders.


Placement


answer


bubble


since


literature


appeared


support


procedure of


marking


answers


within


individual


test


booklets


the answer


tudi


bubbi


that


pertained


were of


interest


to the most


Only


effect ve


one report wa


placement


available


on the phy


ical


arrangement


answers.


Hartley


Davi


Burnhill


(1977)


compared


four


answer


forms


that


varied


placement of


bubbles


left or


right


answers.


results


indicated


that


normal


year


children


demonstrated


no s


significant


preference


particular


placement.


tudi


were


found


that


investigated


handicapped


population.


Theoretically,


when


answer


bubbi


are po


itioned


on the


left,


following


perc


ptual


errors


occur within


an elementary


hand


capped


(right


(EMR,


left)


, LD)


population:


across


number


reversal


fill


when


bubble,


child moves


he may











bubbles


Moving


presented,


bubbles


fist/fingers


right


covering


answer may


answers.


promote


left


to right


reading


sequence


and avoid


accidental


mistakes


that occur while


filling


bubbles.


Unverified


Increa


Modification;


Example/Skill


Ratio


There


appeared


to be


no s


studies


available


that


discussed


value


f example


or their effect


on children


performance.


What


purpose


example


they


facilitate


comprehension


f direction


completion


Hypothetically,


it would


seem


that


difficulty of


test


would d


increase


as the


number of


example


decrea


sed.


ts with


example


examples


question


or 2


kill


changes)


measuring


handicapped


child


ability


to read


directions


respond


changes


independently,


rather


than


assess


true


cogni


tive


abilities


on those


particular


kill


would d


appear


that a


modi field


test


which


increased


rati o


example


relative


introduction


each


skill


change,


i ti ve


change


Implementation


theory would


provide


educational ly


handi-


capped


child with


directions


sample


problem


prior


each


series


tasks.











Characters ti


Needs


Handicapped


Individual


diagnosis


a mildly


handicapping


condition


evolves


from


premi


that


hild


does


learn


as other


children


frequently


from acquiring


character


demonstrate


knowledge


necess


certain


traditional


itate modifications


behavior


manner.


that


These


teaching


prohibit


behaviors


tyle


and/or


presentation of material


Given


the opportunity


to learn,


however,


the mildly


handicapped


child


capable


learning.


"needs"


accompl i


are s


imply


different


than


nonhandi


apped


peers.


umma rizi ng


finding


noted


authority


Morsink


(1977)


some


chara


teri


mildly


handicapped


children


that may


impede


learn ng.


These


include


Attention difficulties


Some


children may


have


problem


concentrate ng

selectively,


on a


or may


specific


be over


, may


elective


unable


use.


use attention


inability may


result


limited


Perceptual


task


behavior or


problems


impul


(auditory/vi


ive guessing

sual/motor).


Children with


these


problems


tend


difficulty


criminating


diffe


rences


between


similar


items.


They may


also


focu


on the


irrel evant


details


k or concept.


social


-emotional


problems


. Frequently,


mildly


handicapped


mfl n.. ~ 4. a a a ..LLI LnJ.ma a a -- I- -. A-- U-


*
- I,


~AII*rSU*~A


*


I


RIIII


-u,-..


f ^l


- hA ,


A


L










continually


failed


past.


Poor


sel f-concepts


extremely


frustration


level


only


complicate


an already


difficult


task


Memory


problems.


These


children


often


demon


state


defi cien


ability


timulu


Al though


store


they may


retrieve


able


auditory


learn


and/or


task


initially,


they


become


plagued


with


inability


recall


information


after


period


time.


Language


deficit


Mildly


handicapped


individual


frequently


demon


state


weak


oral


written


language


kill


Complex


lingui


passages


become


difficult


understand


child


imply


know what


being


asked


of him


. let


alone


Transfer


difficulties.


These


children


tend


have


problems


tructuring


, general i


ing,


seeing


relationships.


They


appear


unable


These


i nte grate


deficits


mailer


make


parts


into


difficult


whole.


handicapped


child


learn


or res


pond


traditional


means.


Ideally,


a learning


envi ronment


will


control


these


variable e


this


control


that


then


allows


optimum


learning


assessment


occur


Current


earch


Handicapped


MCT Modifications
Individuals


According


National


Association


tate


Directors


special


Education


(1979)


only


seven


states


have


already made


or are i


pro-










Georgia,


Kansas


Loui


iana)


have


indicated


formal


provision


special


testing


procedures


categorical


groups


handicapped


student


state


survey


also


indicate


that


current modifications


tend


to concentrate on


severely


handicapped


populations.


example,


the MCT


for vi


modified


ually


using


language


Jenkins,


hearing


braille,


(McClung,


1980)


impai red


larg


1979


the other


print,


McClung


hand


individual


audio


& Pullin,


, some


1978


handi capping


been


upplement,


Smith


conditions


educablee mental


retardation)


have


received


no testing


modifi


action


(McCl ung


& Pullin,


1978)


the mildly


hand capped


students


have


received minimal


attention.


Education


special i


tate of


Florida


are apparently well


aware of


probl ems


involved


with


testing


handicapped


learners


McCarthy


(1980)


tated


that


Florida


the most


elaborate


legi


lative


regulations


date.


tatutes


provide


appropriate modification of


order


student


with


ensure


student


impaired


kill


purpor
Section


sens


identified


that


achievement


ory,


, except
ts to mea


246)


n


manual


where
sure.


ting


handicap


result


rather


peaking,


uch skill
(Florida


than


instrument


or d


procedures


ability


testing repre
reflecting the


or psychological


are the
tatutes,


factors
Chapter


sent
student
process
test


According


Florida


Admini


trative


Code


, the


following


test


modification


have


been


proposed


handicapped


students


r1.2L1- -- L.J-l .


L


ff










exible


setting


student may


administered


test


individually


or i


small


group


setting


proctor


rather


than


in a


classroom


or auditorium


setting


Recording


answers


student may mark


answers


test


booklet,


type


answer


by machine,


or indicate


selected


answers


test


proctor


proctor may


then


transc


ribe


student


responses


onto


a machine-


scoreabl


answer


heet.


Mechani


aids


student may


brated


or template


use a magnifying


or other


devi


pointer,


similar


assist


non-cali-

in main-


tai nng


visual


attention


to the


test


booklet.


Revi


format


t may


presented


student


using


one or more of


following


techniques.


reading--regular


or enlarged


print.


tactile


reading--braille


code or


technology


allow optical/


tactile


tran


formation


test


item


which


have


no real


world


applica-


tions


the blind


person will


deleted


from


form provided


Department.


the mathematics


language


and writing


direction


portions


present


presented


language and


. The










Department,


presented;


test


administrator may


read


script


version


to the


student


however,


reading


portion


test mu


read


or tactile


means


(Propo


State


Board


Rule


.943


State


Florida,


1980)


progressive


as the


Florida


modifi


nations


compare -


son with


those


other


tate


, they may be


somewhat


leading.


current empha


appears


on the


more


general


"procedural"


mod-


i fications


truction


where

test.


and when

Although


f testing)


these


than


on the


modifications


actual


con-


benefit


ial,


would


appear


that mildly


handicapped


population


require


additional


t modifications


involving


design


physical


formatting


issues


dealing with


print


, color,


spacing


consi


stency,


or realism)


There


little


rese


arch


data


available


area


f specific


modi fi cations


on test


performance


handicapped


learners


Al though


many


educator


espouse


legal


and educational


need


modification


(Denninger,


1979


Kaluzny


1979


McCarthy,


1980;


McClung


& Pullin,


1978


mith


Jenkins


, 1980)


there


have


been


only


three


known


tudie


using modified


formats


tate


assessment


tests


State


Research


Studies


New Jersey


A project


Jersey


under


direction


of Lydia


Greenberg,


Coordinator of


tate


ting


Program,


Jersey


tate


=


..


i










twelfth


grade


handicapped


students,


assess


reading


and math


kills.


areas


handicapping


conditions


included


communica-


tion


impaired


mentally


retarded,


emotionally


sturbed,


ortho-


pedically


handicapped


chronically


ill,


perceptually


impaired,


neurologically


impaired


multiply


handicapped,


socially mal-


adju


ted.


contra


t with


their


rformance


on the


standard


test,


students


grade


, 10,


higher


scores


on the


revised


reading


test.


There


was no s


significant


difference


between


student


performance


on the


revised


standard math


ubtests


grade


Even


with


noted


reading


score


improvement,


however,


handicapped


population


till


scored


below


normal


group of


students.


Based


tion


on the


appeared


analysis


have


f the


greatest


field


test


impact


following modifica-


tudy


according


Greenberg


(1980):


print


was enlarged.


Time


1imit


were


extended


(approximately


twice


normal


amount of


time


allotted)


teacher was


asked


to mention


time


limit.


Practice


tests


were


developed


handicapped


students


four


grade


level


purpose


this


was to acquaint


students


with


test


taking


techniques.


was administered


one to two


week


before


actual


testing.











Transferring


answers


from


test


booklet


to the


answer


heet


caused


places.


confusion


suggestion


anxiety


were


made


, and


have


student


student


lost


mark


their


answers


test


booklets


or respond


orally


wording of


directions


should


implified.


Admini


stra-


tors


should


able


paraphrase


instruction


Direction


should


repeated


or examples


re-expl ained


student


does


understand.


Directions


should


read


aloud


ensure


each


student


under


tand


task.


Marker


would d


hel p


alleviate


problem


students


losing


their


places.


It wa


also


recommended


that


several


variable


cons


idered when


determining


student


eligibility


inclu


minimum


competency


testing


program


Handicapped


students


previous


experience


taking


standardized


tests


appeared


to perform


better


than


those


not.


Elementary


secondary


special


education


students


been


taffed


into


resource


rooms


performed


better


than


those


special


education


students


been


taffed


into


self-


contained


classrooms.


was also


recommended


that any


student


functioning


at a


level


or more


years


below


content


level


test


should


excluded


from


test.


Florida


Another


tudy was


conducted


tate


Florida


JoEllen


Pere z


198O)


Based


on th


- WV


Jersey


tudy


a review of


V


,


*


1


a


--










required modification.


They


cons


listed


clear


presentation


directions


addition of


supplemental


direction


ample


items,


varlou


alternatives


indicating


responses


marking


answers


test


book


t or


giving


answers


orally)


access


an audio


sensation of


some


items


clear


print


format and


print


size;


adequate


spacing


that


would


facilitate


process


task


information,


Perez


(1980)


placed


the major


emphasis


Florida


s modified


st on


timulus/r


response mode.


Using


learni ng


abled


(LD)


venth


grader


from


Dade


County


area,


Perez


admini


tered


modified


assessment


with


follow-


changes


group of


students


too k


test augmented


with


audio


support


Another


group of


students


took


large


print


version of


A third


group


took


standard


ized


print


test


student


unlimited


time


responding


to test


items.


Templates


or markers


white)


were


available


student


use.


student


option of


responding


test


item


circling


or underlining


entire


item


or (b)


corresponding










tested.


Large


print


also


showed


improved


scores


when compared


audio


support


four


eight


skill


There wa


no skill


where


regular print


or audio


support


was preferred


large


print.


accommodate


large


print,


however,


booklets


enlarged


(1980)


noted


that


the older stud


ents


expressed


their di


like,


as the


booklet


was awkward


handle and


tended


draw


attention


ability.


Some


reported


confu


ion with


audio


support


senta-


tion of


auditory


They


visual


found


timul4


it difficult


The markers


to cope with


provided


combined


tudy were


not u

using


sed


secondary


their


pencil


to mark


their


students

place.


, although


some were


Finally,


seen


not appear


poss


ible


use the


psychological


data


individual


student


predict maximum


performance


on tests


with


specific


modifications.


University


Florida


Research


The mo


(1981)


current


tudy wa


University


conducted


Florida.


Beattie


anal


and Algoz


of the


tate


student As


sessment


Test-Part


(grade


review


literature


indicated


that


several


general


physical


format


modifications


could


implemented


as potential


aids


to mildly


handi-


capped


students.


specifically,


following


changes


were made


I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ IU Z42l15vA-aS ,-.-J.A


C~nrl~~r(


Cn Hm ~ ~


nWn~)A


rA


S1Y r J i










multiple e


choice


answer options


were


placed


vertical


format with


shape of


coring


"bubble


individual


answer


" placed


bubble


was a


right


hori


each


ontal


choi


oval


Third


grade


tests


were


available


either


standard


print


0 mm)


or enlarged


print


.3 mm)


Fifth


grade


test


were


printed


enlarged


type and


standard


print.


sentence


reading


comprehen


item


were arranged


unjustified


format when


possible;


that


, complete


sentences


were


left


intact creating


tional


uneven


tests maintained


right


the ju


hand margins.


tified


In contrast


formatting


tradi-


character-


equal


left and


right


hand margins.


Reading


comprehen


passages


were


placed


haded


boxes


immediately


above


test


items


related


them.


Example


were


provided


each


skill


grouping


within


individual


test


sections


example


were


set apart


from the


test


item


by boxes.


specific words


that


required


additional


emphasis


were


printed


boldface


type


as opposed


uppercase


capital


letter


itali


or underlining.


Pictorial


representation


coins


were di


played


with


head


or face


was i


contrast


traditional


tail


format.


9 mn)











Arrows


were


placed


lower


right-hand


corner


page


indicate


continuing


sections


Stop


signs


were


itioned


similarly


, denoting


an end


each


kill


section


A total


third


fifth


grade


learning


abled


(LD)


students


from


seven


county


Florida


participated


tudy


ults


indicated


that


third


fi fth


grade


students


' per-


formance


on the


modified


was comparable


or better


than


that on

items e


regular


val uated.


approximately


Detailed


analysis


peci fic


percent


modifications


test

revealed


that


both


third


fi fth


grade


students


performed


consi


tently


higher on


modified


test


items


presenting


coin


face


third


grade


students


(the


was not


perform d


better on


presented


fifth


modi field


grade


sequencing


test


section


there


was no s


significant


difference


between


students


performance on


tests


printed


standard


type


their


performance


on tests


printed


enlarged


print.


Summary


review of


literature


revealed


very


studies


that


applied


to physical


test modification


designed


for mildly


handicapped


elementary


involved


aged


non-d


children


scriminatory


to current


testing


legal


there


educational


a definite


need


issues

for


. .. -


II(I ,


=










They


also


agree


that words


written


capital


letters


or italics


down


rate


reading.


spite


agreement,


however


there

these


were


no studies


printing


available


procedures


with


that

various


establi


handicapped


effectiveness


population


There


appear


to be


conflicting


data


regarding


effectiveness


enlarged


print with


handicapped


populations.


Additional


research


with


various


handicapped


individual


warranted


order


measure


effect


enlarged


print


on the


type of


handicap


different age


subjects


Typographers


recommend


use of


unju


tified


lines


greater


legibility


ease


reading


presence


only


one empirical


study


to date


with


ahndicapped


children


also


suggests


need


continued


research


area.


There


appears


controversy


literature


regarding


benefit


grouping


similar


items


hierarchy


from easy


hard


normal


children


handicapped


There


children


with


are no known


scattered


tudi


item


measuring


or groups


abilities


items


no order of


difficulty.


literature contains


efficient evidence


warrant


con-


that


elementary


handicapped


children


perform better when


required


to respond


directly


their


answer


bookl ets


as opposed


trans


ferrying


answers


a separate


answer


heet.


other


hand,


research


appears


limited


regard


effect


physical


format-











Research


also


limited


regard


physical


formatting


individual


test


items.


Although


one s


tudy


recommended


maximum


cell


per page


used,


results


tudy


prove


that


number wa


critical


. There


appear


to be


no data


that


measure


confusion


handicapped


children


experience


from


random placement of


test


items


Finally,


number of


no rel


vant


example


data


kill


could d


change


found


either normal


recommended

or handicapped


population


purpose


f thi


tudy,


inclu


modification


was base


logic


current


knowledge


available


regarding


learning character


of handicapped


normal


children.


Based


on this


review


, the


following


physical


test


format modifica-


tion


appear


warranted


continued


research.


They


include


effectiveness


boldface


type


for emphasis


, unju


tified


formatting of


sentence


, grouping of


similar


task


progre


ssive


hierarchy


, inclu-


of example


facilitate


transition,


placement


answer


bubble


relation


to foil


The effect


these


modi fi cation


on the


performance


students


with


mildly


handicapping


conditions


as L


, EMR,


primary


interest.


inclu


normal


group


individual


reveal


that


specific modification


are s


imply


"good"


test


construc-


tionn


formatting


nrincidnles


aool cable


beneficial


to the


ma.iori tv
















CHAPTER


METHODS


PROCEDURES


Chapter


includes


a description


method


procedures


used


tudy


There


are two


major


section


chapter


first


description


ubje


second


descri p-


tion


experimental


procedure


including


material


, setting,


variable


, hypoth


eses


data


analysis


Method


research


was conducted


Al achua


County


Orlando,


which


compri


sed of


three


counties


(Orange,


Seminole,


Osceola)


Alachua


County


located


north


central


Florida


encompa


sses


an area


approximately


square


miles,


population


,817


Metropolitan


Orlando


s located


cental


Florida,


approximately


square


mile


population


723,903


Four categories


students


from


third


grade


participated


tudy


These


included


normal


students


those


student


with










condition


are listed


Appendi


Each


group


subjects


(LD,


, EMR,


normal)


contained


students


total


population


subject


Permi


ssion


partici pate


tudy was


obtained


from ea


student


parent/


guardian.


Parent


permit


ssion


lips


are i


Appendix


Selection


students


was done


randomly.


Alachua


County,


there was


a limited


number


diagnosed


third


grade


students


result,


principal s


those


school


were


contacted


permit


ssion


to test.


addition


selecting


those


particular


students


third


grade


LD and


children


proportionate


number of


normal


third


grade


children


those


school


were


also


selected


partici


pation


tudy


Orange


County


special


Education


Coordinators


randomly


elected


school


obtained


principal


pe rmi


ssion


children


those


school


to participate


tudy


each


county


children


were


randomly matched within


each


category according


to reading


level


obtained


from a


Ginn


reading


or Woodcock


Reading Ma


tery


Test.


students


reading


same


level


were


then


randomly


assigned


to take


either


a modified


or s


standard


vers


test.


mean


reading


level


for the


entire


population


was 2


(fourth


month


second


grade).


average


reading


level


category were


normal


ubjects-grade


learning


disabled


- grade


* (c)


emotionally


handicapped


- grade


educable mentally


retarded


grade


. Analysis


s of these


, (b)










subjects


were


evenly


tri buted


= 0.21


0.005


.05)


across


test


type


with


regard


sex and


race


49 male


standard,


black


modified),


standard


female


modified)


standard,


40 white


14 modified),


standard,


modified).


Consi


tent with


past


findings


special


education


literature


however


, sex and


race


were


not evenly


tribute


a cro ss;


category


pec i fi c


exampi


relation


hips


between


race/


special


LD as


education


black


placement


almost


are three


times


times


as many


as many white


boys


children


as girl


breakdown


four categories


race


sex i


presented


Table


Table


Category


Category


Membership


Black


Race


Race


White


Mal e


Female


Normal


14(17


.5%)


8(10


.0%)


12(15


.0%)


15(18


.8%)


8(10


.0%)


11(13


9(11


10(1


10(1


.0%)


8(10.


=8.










Experimental


Procedures


Each


randomly


selected


subjects


was asked


complete


a 100


item


school


testing


students


too k


occurred


test


desi gnated


small


ssroom


groups


effects


various


test modifications


on the


performance


four


groups


students


were


evaluated


using


appropriate


inferential


stati


tics.


Material


students


were


randomly


assigned


take


one of


tests,


either


standard


or modified


vers


test


contained


items


with


multiple


choice


answers;


answers


were


marked


within


booklet.


test


items


were


identical


content


, differing


only


physical


format.


Internal


consi


stency


estimates


standard


modified


total


ranged


from


Reliability measure


five modification


ubte


generally


ranged


from


.94,


with


three


subtests


scores


falling


below


Refer


Table


reliability


f the


total


test


each


ubtest


category


standard


test consi


five


groups


items.


These


items


were


kill


-40),


character


skill


-20),


placement of


by exclu


incon


answer


example


istent method of


bubbles


transition


denoting


left


from


empha


foil


(#41-


60),


presentation


kill


mixed


hierarchy


f difficulty










Table


Internal


tency


standard


Estimate


Modified


Tests


Test


Category


Total


Version


Example


Boldface


ubtests
Answer
Bubbles


Hierarchy


Line


Length


Standard


Modi field


Normal


Normal


modified


test


also


consi


five


group


of 20


items.


These


items,


however,


were


characterized


inclu


example


teacher explanation


beginning


each


new s


kill


section


(#1-


20),


use of boldface


type


to denote empha


-40),


placement


answer


bubbles


right


f the


answer


foil


(#41


-60)


grouping


similar


items


a hierar


progress


difficulty


(#61


-80)


unju


tified


line


length


(#81


-100)


A sample


modi field


test










Setting


subjects


were


removed


from


their


regular


classrooms


taken


to one


room where


standard


modified


tests


were


admini


tered


beginning


group


test


approximately


following


statement was


students.


read


Before


subjects.


Today


are going


take


special


test


. You


probably


have


seen


ques


tion


like


these


your


class-


room work.


want


to take


your


time


answer


as many


questions


as you


your


hand


have


tions


there


questions


Good


luck!


tests


were


admini


tered


on two


consecutive


days


students


were


given


items


-60 of


their


respe


tive


test


during


firs t


sess


which


asted


approximately


60-75


minutes.


Items


#61-


100 were


admini


tered


on the


next


day with


that


sess


lasting


approximately


60 minutes.


Upon


completion


test,


subjects


returned


to their


regular


ssroom


setting.


Variables


The effects


f the


experimental


procedure


on s


students


' test


performance


scores


was measured.


Four


group


students


were


evaluated


using


two different


format


performance


scores


total


test


comparable


ubte


were


analyzed.


1 n Ao nan n 4n n


~lwarn


4- rna


flnrAon+


1


nT


! k


II












comprised of


standard


and modified


formats


were


used;


modifica-


tions


included


grouping


similar


i teams


a hierarchy of


progress


unju


difficulty,


tified manner,


arrangement


introduction


of line


example


length


directions


each


right


new skill


of each


change


placement


foil,


answer


use of boldface


bubble


type


emphasis


dependent


variable


this


tudy was


raw score


indicating


student


performance


on the


total


or group of


selected


test


i teams


Equal


numbers


test


i teams


were


included


each


test


modification.


Hypotheses


A series


f related


hypotheses


were


addressed.


These


included:


There


no difference


total


test


performance


various


groups


students


as a fun


action


nature


of the


test


modified


standard


form).


There


no difference


performance


various


groups


students


on s


elected


items


as a


function


an increased


ra ti o


example


kill


changes.


There


no difference


performance of


various


groups


students


on selected


test


items


as a


function


boldface


type.


There


no difference


performance


various


groups


- a U a U a i S a S S -~ S --.tt-~ -


t .. E. i. 'I~


r


1 1 ii


F 1 I I










There


no difference


performance


f various


groups


student


line


Data


on selected


test


items


as a fun


tion


f unjustified


lengths.


Analysis


data


analysis


was conducted


following manner


There


was a c


comparison


test


scores


on the


standard


and modified


test


form


for each


of the


handicapped


, EMR)


normal


group


factor


analyses


variance


(ANOVA)


were


completed


total


performance


score


performance


on each


set of


similar


items.


Main effects


interaction


were


analy


subsequent


follow-up


analyses


were


completed


as necessary


percent


level


of confi


dence was


used


Table


were


prepared


total


test


scores


and each


t modification


items


Additionally


post hoc


comparison


student


performance


on certain


kill


ster


f items


was completed


difference


between


modified


standard


test


performance


were evaluated


using


criteria


developed


Florida


State


Department of


Education


ummary


purpose


this


tudy was


compare


total


test


performance


scores


two tests


between


four


groups


students.


Performances


each


group of


students


on selected


test


item modifications


were


also










randomly


selected


each


f the


four categories


half


taking


modified


test


items


half


taking


standard


version


item


tests


were


admini


tered


mall


group


students,


seven


students


group.


test


was given


on two consecutive


days


approximately


minutes


minute


sess


ions


respectively


each


day.


standard


statement was


read


students


prior


beginning


test.


factor


performance


analyses


score


variance


performance


were


completed


on each


total


similar


items.


Main


effects


interaction


were


analy


susequent


follow-up


analyses


were


completed


as necessary


using


percent


level


confidence.
















CHAPTER


SULTS


study wa


conducted


invest gate


possible


effects


five


ical


test


format modification


on the


performance


mildly


tion


handicapped


included


normal


an increased


third


ratio


grade


students.


example


skill


modifica-


change,


use of boldface


grouping


type


similar


empha


item


placement


hierarchy


answer


of progressive


bubbles


diffi


culty,


unjustified


line


length


Eighty


students


from


Alachua


County


and metropolitan


Orlando


school


participated


tudy


. There


were


students


each


four


categories


(LD,


, normal)


. The


student


within


each


category were


randomly matched


according


to reading


ability


randomly


assigned


to either


standard


or modified


test


forms.


Data


were


analyzed


using two


factor


analyse


variance


(ANOVA)


total


similar


test


items


performance


ubtests


score


Os


performance


igni ficant main


on each


effects


category were


further


evaluated


using


follow-up


analyses


according


to Tukey


Hone


significant


Di ffer


ences


cited


Ferguson,


1971)


procedure


main


effect


differences


test


forms


were


interpreted


. =


.


w v










Mean


standard


deviations


anal


ance


summary


table


total


test


performance


are presented


Table


ignifi


cant main


ects


are indi


cated


both


category


test


form.


similar


information


relative


student


performance on


five


modification


ests


, example


boldface


type,


answer


bubble


placement


progress


rarchy,


unju


tified


line


length),


presented


Table


Total


performance on


the modified


was approxi


mately


point


higher


than


on the


standard


form


= 68.


revealed


follow-up


analyses


performance of


students


was s


similar


as were


normal


students.


scores


the mentally


retarded


nts,


however


were


ignifi-


cantly


lower


than


normal


students.


With


regard


ubte


scores


ere were


no differences


test


form for


four


five modifi


cation


subtests


one excep-


tion wa


example


ubtest.


example


ubte


students


achieved


higher


scores


on the modified


version


than on


standard


version


performance of


indicated


student


was consi


follow-up


tently


analyses


similar on


ubtests


abled and


was also


normal


true


students


normal


performed


nd EH students.

similarly on only


Learni ng


percent


ests


children


al ways


performed


lower


than other


categories


students.


Results


follow-up


analyses are


presented










Table


Mean


Standard


on S


Deviations


tandard/Modified


students


Test


Performance


Total Score
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 89.3 10.6
Normal
Modified 92.9 6.2

Standard 71.5 16.8
LD
Modified 78.3 12.4

Standard 76.3 20.1
EH
Modified 83.3 12.9

Standard 38.7 13.0
EMR
Modified 46.3 15.5




Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 26085.75 8695.25 3 44.32*

Test Form 781.25 781.25 1 3.98*

Category X 48.55 16.18 3 .08
Test Form
Error 14125.89 196.19 72










Table 4


Means


standard


on S


Deviations


ubtest


students


Performance


Example Modification


Examples
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 18.1 2.4
Normal
Modified 18.8 1.5

Standard 15.5 2.9
LD
Modified 16.0 2.7

Standard 15.4 3.7
EH
Modified 16.9 2.6

Standard 7.1 3.2
EMR
Modified 11.0 4.4



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 982.00 327.33 3 35.22*

Test Form 54.45 54.45 1 5.86*

Category X 36.55 12.18 3 1.31
Test Form

Error 669.19 9.29 72










Table


Means


standard


on S


Deviations
for Boldfac


students


Performance


Type Modification


Boldface
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 17.7 2.2
Normal
Modified 18.5 2.0

Standard 13.6 5.0
LD
Modified 15.3 4.1

Standard 14.9 5.4
EH
Modified 16.5 4.7

Standard 7.1 3.8
EMR
Modified 8.3 3.5



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 1191.84 397.28 3 24.79*

Test Form 35.11 35.11 1 2.19

Category X 2.54 .85 3 .053
Test Form

Error 1153.49 16.02 72










Table


Mean


on S


standard


ubte


Deviations


swer


Students


Performance


Bubble Modification


Answer Bubbles
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 18.5 1.8
Normal
Modified 18.8 1.1

Standard 13.7 5.5
LD
Modified 14.8 4.4

Standard 15.5 4.0
EH
Modified 17.4 2.1

Standard 8.3 3.4
EMR
Modified 8.3 4.1



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Square(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 1189.94 396.64 3 30.68*

Test Form 13.61 13.61 1 1.05

Category X 10.94 3.65 3 .28
Test Form

Error 930.89 12.93 72










Table


Mean


standard


on Subtest


Deviations for
for Hierarchial


Students'


Modification


Performance


Hierarchy
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 18.5 2.2
Normal
Modified 19.2 1.3

Standard 16.3 2.8
LD
Modified 17.0 2.5

Standard 16.9 4.7
EH
Modified 17.6 2.1

Standard 9.6 3.8
EMR
Modified 11.1 6.0



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Square(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 836.55 278.85 3 22.74*

Test Form 16.20 16.20 1 1.32

Category X 2.40 .80 3 .06
Test Form

Error 882.79 12.26 72










Table


Means


on S


standard


ubtest


Deviations


Line


Students


Length


' Performance


Modification


Line Length
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 16.5 4.9
Normal
Modified 17.6 2.9

Standard 12.4 4.1
LD
Modified 15.0 2.2

Standard 13.7 4.5
EH
Modified 14.9 4.6

Standard 7.8 5.0
EMR
Modified 7.6 3.2



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 930.64 310.21 3 18.89*
Test Form 27.61 27.61 1 1.68

Category X 19.64 6.55 3 .39
Test Form
Error 1182.29 16.42 72










Table


Results


Follow-Up


Honestly


Analy


significant


Using


Tukey


Differences


Category


Normal
x score


score


x score


x score


Total


Test


79.80


ubtests


Example


18.45


Boldface


15.70


14.45


wer Bubble


Hierarchy


Line


Length


18.65 16.45


18.85


8.30


17.25 16.65


17.05 14.30 13.70










Current


testing


practice


Florida


reporting


present scores


results

that a


minimum competency


re indicative


mastery


mance


of ba


standards


relative


kills.


each


total


tate


subskill


number of


establi


number


ubskill


items


hed minimum


items


perfor-


correct


attempted


basi


deci


making


relative


"mastery


mastery


criteria


currently


being


used


Florida


are presented


n Table


Within


the five different


ubte


presented


tudy,


different


were


included


A post hoc


analy


student


test


per-


formance


on s


peci fic


ubskill s


was completed.


Individual


scores


were


calculated


percentage


kill


items


correct


these


were


compared


current


state


mastery


criteria.


Results


analysis


are presented


Table


percent


ubskill


sections,


difference


was the


between


difference


performance


between


on the


achieving master


standard an

y criteria


d modified


tests


failing


Overall,


performance


scores


modified


test


were


one to 1


percentage


points


higher than


on the


standard


test


for 80


percent


individual


ubskill


sections.


Further


analy


data


was completed


regarding


number of


student


achieving ma


stery


subtest


category


appeared


there were


no sub


tantial


difference


mastery


level


normal


students


on either


standard


or modified


test


vers


ions.


Certain


t modification


appear,


however


tofcltt


to fa c i 1 i ta te


w .


J










Table


Criter


Used


Determine


Report Mastery


kill


When


measure


number
a skill


questions


follows:


The minimum


required
shall be


number of


to be answered
as follows:


question


correctly


4 of


5 of


9 of

10 of

10 of


Source:


Florida


Department


State and


Divi


ion of


distri


Publi


Education.
t report of


hool


Stati


results


erie


Report:


Tall aha


, February


ssee,
1981.


1980-


__ __










Table


Compari


Modi field


of Mean


ubte


Scores


with


tery


Standard
Criteria


Mastery 1
Criteria


standard


Test


percentage


score


Modified


percentage


score


Example


Dollar


Fractions


Measurement


quencing


(1st-


last)


order


Math


Word


Problems


Boldface


.5 *

.7


Pronoun


Oppo


Following


directions


Answer Bubble


-digit addition


Math


Word


Problems


Reading


Comprehension











Table


11-Continued


Mastery
Criteri


standard


Test


x percentage


score


Line


Modified


Test


percentage


score


Length


Reading


Comp


-end


Reading

$ Word


# Word


Comp.

Problems


Problems


Reading


Comp.


-not


Hierarchy


+ vertical

+ horizontal


- vertical


- hori


70.5


zontal


Indicates
achieved
version.


those
on the


subtests
modified


which


vers


mastery


not on


criteria


standard


_ __ ._










criteria


were


substantially


higher when


using


modi fiction


unjustified


line


lengths.


Likewi


differences


favor


boldface


type


example


modifications


were


noted


students


student


respectively


Data


upporti ng


hese


conclu


ions


contained


n Table


summary,


both


total


category


test


test


performance


form.


differences


a result


were


follow-up


indicated


analyses,


no s


significant


differences


between


students


' scores


between


those


normal


students


were


indicated


Learning


disabled


normal


student


' performance


was s


significantly


different


student


' scores


were


cons


tently


lower


than


those


other category


student


A compare


test


forms


indicated


total


performance


on the


modified


test


was approxi


mately


an average


points


higher


than


on the


standard


test


form.


Analy


f subtest


scores


revealed


consi


tent main


effects


categories


performance


students


imi lar


on all


ubtests


as was that


f normal


students


Learning


disabled


normal


students


performed


similarly


on 3


percent of


lower than


ubtests


other


children


categories


consi


students


tently


only


performed


ignifi cant


difference


test


form wa


on the


example


ubtest,


with


higher


scores


being


achieved


on the


modifi


form


than


on the


standard


version


f the










Table


Frequency


Count


Students


Subtest


Subtest


Examples


Achieving


Mastery


Category


Subskill


Dollar
Fractions


Measurement
Sequencing
ABC Order


Math
Total


Boldface


Word


Not
End
Pronouns
Opposites
Following
Total


Probl ems


Directions


Answer
Bubble


2-digit Addition
Math Word Problems


Reading
Reading
Spelling
Total


Comprehension
Comprehension


Line


ngth


Reading
Reading
$ Word
# Word
Reading
Total


Comprehension
Comprehension
Problems


Problem
Comp.


s
- Not


Hierarchy


+ Vertical
+ Horizontal
- Vertical
- Horizontal
Total











standard


test


percent


individual


ubskill


sections.


analysis


these


differences


indicated


number


instances


.e.,


percent)


when


mastery was


achieved


on the


modified


test


standard.


Further


analysis


indicated


that


specific


test modification


produced


substantial


differences


numbers


differences


students


were


attaining mastery


seen


criteria


students


category


using


These


unjustified


line


length


students


using


boldface


type,


students


using


example
















CHAPTER


DISCUSSION AND


CONCLUSIONS


ests


can be


useful


tools


adequately


designed


used


properly,


they


can direct


teachers


specific


strength


weaknesses


hild.


ests


can be


used


determine degrees


deficit


facilitate


appropriate


placement,


be of


assi


tance


development of


instructional


trategi


information


obtained

lessons


from

and c


tests


curriculum,


also

and


useful


determining


evaluating


amount


skill


prog res


, planning


that


have


been made.


essence,


tests


can be


used


constructively


analyze


problem


serve


as a


remediation


Unfortunately,


are not always


designed


implemented


sens


ibly


or i


best


interest of


hild.


Often


test


item


not measure what


they


purport


to m


measure


and a


child


true


ability


not adequately


assessed.


Al though


hild may


cognitively


know


kill,


the manner


which


kill


ted may


frequently


affect


ability


demon


state


proficiency


same


kill


pre-


sented


in a


different manner/mode may


elicit


totally


different


response.


ssibly,


the great


inequiti


testing may


a a


. a a


q


1 I I


I .


A


I










express


response"


25).


result,


hand capped


students


possibly


unable


demon


trate


their


true


level


content


knowledge


instead,


responses


measure of


ability


tran


decode


answers.


direction


Gearheart


read


the word


Willenberg


(1974)


passage,


empha


need


testing


examiner


to be


aware


confounding


factors


i nherent


some


hand


apping


conditions


They


stress


need


"remember


primary


handicap


and make certain you


are te


ting what


intend


test,


reflection


or outcome


disability"


. Individual


involved


admini


traction


tests mu


extremely


careful


recogni


poss


ible


interaction


between


student


ability,


ability


behavior


sampled


items.


ideration of


appropriate


test modification


appears


warranted.


alvia


sseldyke


(1978)


state


that


"conmnon


sense


tells


us that


student


cannot


read


the directions


or write


responses,


est requiring


these abilities


inappropriate"


26).


support


this


ssue,


Marsh


Gearheart


Gearheart


(1978)


contend


that


students


with


poor


reading


and writing


kill


should


have


to take


tests


under


traditional


circumstances.


Tests


need


eliminated.


uch,


standard


test


forms may


imply


need


be modified


according


individual


differences.


Optimally,


tests


could


be d


designed


handicapped


population


adequately


assess


their


kill










deficiencies,


or poor


decoding


skills.


When


a test


compensates


these


weakne


sses


, there


Isa


greater


assurance


that


child


true


ability


been accurately mea


ured


Diagno


educators


can then proceed


take


full


advantage of


benefits


that


testing


offer.


There


been


little


research associated


with


ical


test


modifications.


Further,


investigations


appear


be warranted


those modification


educationally


that


handicapped


are s

(LD,


specifically


EMR)


designed


student


for

alvia


the mild


sseldyke,


1978)


information gath


relative


to the effect


test


modifications,


designing


can serve


as a


implementing


future


test


minimum


planning


abilities


relative


handi


capped


students.


Discuss


Findings


Eighty


third


grade


students


(normal,


EMR)


from Alachua


Orange


County


were


admini


stere


one of


two version


a minimum


comp


tency


test.


group


students


, comprised


student


from


each


category,


received


standard


The other group of


was admini


tered


a modified


version


standard


test.


Al though


the content of


test


item


remained


constant,


physical


formatting


was altered


example


boldface


print,


answer


bubble


ni 2rnmon* 5~~~~ vr~ bn 5 nf Mna-+nnl r nYr


Hi 4a1 yrrrk n1


1: .


4..


nl~r pmpnf


I r^ n


~nn


I










significant main effects


test


form exi


only


total


test


scores


those


example


ubtest.


average,


student


taking


the modified


test


performed


approximately


point


higher


on the


item test


than


those


students


taking


standard


version.


example


ubtest,


students


achieve


higher


scores


(approximately


two points


or a


gain


percent)


on the


modified


version


than


on the


standard


test.


These


finding


would


sugge


st that


students


performance


varie


with


type


test admini


tered


favor


modified


version.


Category


Anal


yses


igni ficant


main


effects


category


student were


further


evaluated


using


Tukey


Honestly


i gni fi cant


Di fference


procedure.


Consi


stent


tests


(total


ubtest


was s


similar


perform-


ance


between


ubte


ents


(those


modified


between


normal


hierarchical


students.


arrangement


items


unju


tified


line


lengths)


normal


student


performed


ilarly


other


instances,


student


performed


igni ficantly


lower


than


other categories


students.


These


results


support


differences


student


performance


consi


tent


with


assigned


category.


Post


Analyse


Additional


analvCP


7,mn .. .Pr


adrcvcc the c


nri fi r


Wa rP


.


I .











students.


Although


overall


analysis


indicated


that


differences


between


these


test


scores


were


significant


at the


level,


issue


of mastery


individual


ubskill


was of


interest.


percentage


of items


correct


each


ubskill


on both


test


versions


was calculated


These


scores


were


then


compared


with


current


state


mastery


riteria.


compare


revealed


that


performance


scores


on the


modi field


test


were


higher


than


those


standard


test


percent


subs


kills


tested.


increase


between


mean


scores


ranged


from


percentage


points.


These


increases


performance


scores


modified


test


subse-


quently


became


difference


between


mastery


failure


percent


subskill


sections


. Students


taking


modi


field


test


achieved mastery


level


criteria


for one-third


sub-


that


were


not ma


tered


on the


standard


version.


analy


revealed


that


peci fi c


modifications


appeared


facilitate


acquisition


mastery


certain


category e


handi


apped


students.


Frequency


of mastery wa


tantially


higher


stu-


ents


on the


unju


tified


line


length


ubtest


students


bol dface


type


subtest


students


on the


example


ubtest.


Another


issue


interest


was the


presence


trend


performance


scores


between


category


on total


test.


Some


pro-


fess


ional


argue


that


physical


format


modifi


action


imply


. -V -


test


scores


across


- .


categories.


ults


_ V


w


W I mW V


w


r


w w .










for normal


differences


students


between


was 3.


standard


favor of


and modified


modified


test


test)


scores


students


were


These


differences


modified


test


were


consi


tently


three


four


point


higher


for mildly


handicapped


student


than


they were


normal


students.


Although


no interaction


between


form


category


resulted


from


analysis


inferential


tati


data


were


then


analyze


ascertain


pecifi c


categories


obtained


higher


performance


scores


on any


particular


ubtests


either


vers


ion.


Emotion-


ally


handicapped


point


boldface


percent)


type,


students


higher


answer


cons


on the


bubble


tently


cored


modi field


placemen t


an average


subtest


Learning


example


abled


students


achieved


an average


point


higher on


boldface


type


ubtest


three


points


percent)


higher


on the


unju


tified


line


length


subtest


, both


modified


vers


ions.


Normal


educable


mentally


retarded


students


' average


scores


appear


to be


affected d


ubte


t modification


exception


this


was EMR


mean


scores


on the


example


subtest


this


one instance


differences


between


mean


scores


reached


tati


tical


igni finance,


a difference


percent.


Observations


, EH,





-










example,


performance was


read well


became


apparent early


closely related


performed well,


to reading


those


pilot


ability


tudy that

Those st


student


poor


test


udent


read-


kill


great


difficulty


taking


test


achieved


test


scores.


Another


effect


reading


ability


appeared


have


test


performance


was the


ability of


some


children


to understand


sages


read


ilently


several


mildly


handicapped


children


appeared


to demon


trate


comprehension


problems


when


reading


themselves


confu


when


reading


aloud


Many mildly


handicapped


student


also


appeared


to be


acking


test


taking


skill


They


did not


recogni


basic


direction


words


as "above


" "below,


"I II


same


" "different,


" "find,


or "choose


Some


students


went


directly


from


reading


ssage


to the


test


answer choices


without


reading


estion


inter


group


of LD


students


, however,


demon


treated


outstanding


test


tak-


kill


reading


They


read


tion


to be


answered


first


then


continued


find


sol ution


passage


. For


example,


response


to "How


tory end?"


these


students


immediately


went


last


sentence


(without


reading


entire


passage)


marked


corres


ponding


answer.


Some


student


also


demonstrated


particular


difficulties


with


ubskill


following


directions.


There


was a


tendency


great many


follow t


1 phabet


sequence


labeled


dots


rather


s


w


l 1










children


were


taken


aside


asked


to redo


items


from


this


section


each


instance


child


read


problem


aloud.


each


sentence


that


ncl uded


directional


clue


examiners


aid,


confu


was all


eliminated


performed with


little


difficulty.


Another


cons


stent


problem


students


was those


items


measuring


hild


ability


to locate


two particular


items


four


then


correctly mark


only


one of


those


two.


example,


"Look


these


pictures.


Find


apple


Find


other


thing


that


good


Mark


eat.


large


Mark


animal


one you


Many


found


children


"Find


cons


animal


tently marked


answers


for ea


ques


tion,


both


thing


to eat


both


animal


final


observation


are noted.


appeared


that


some


children


best method


obtaining


an accurate


assessment


ability would


only


a one to


one test


situation


Independent


test


alent


performance


to those


scores


that


obtained


could


within


obtained


group


on a


seem


one to


quiv-


examiner


student,


attention


basi


Finally


to the


test


, there


item


were


numbers.


those


students


instead


progress


vertically


down


each


page


as the


test


was numbered,


most


children


proceeded


answer


items


ented


horizontally


across


top of


each


page


then


across


bottom.


curri


ulum


resource


teacher


noted,


"It makes


me so angry


minimum


compe-











answering


questions


another


passage


(upper


right


quadrant)


. This


posed


potential


problems


this


tudy


along with


affe


cting


math


hierarchy


was corrected


ly repeatedly


demonstrating


correct


order


to each


student


individually


monitoring


activity


Implication


an instance


when


mastery


criteria a


are o


utmost


importance,


appears


that


modi fi cation


made


tudy,


alterations


physi


modi field


formatting


test


have


achieved mastery


some


merit.


level


student


criteria a


taking


eight


sub-


that


were


not ma


tered


on the


standard


vers


ion.


Mastery


achievement on


modified


ubtests


contribute


sel f


concept


possibly


itive


facilitate


attitude


acqui


mildly


ition


handicapped


standard


learner


diploma


some


states.


indicated


post


analysis


students


' perform-


ance


on the


example


ubtest


these


indeed


know


perform


skill


demon


state


proficiency more


readily when


example


students


are provided.


also


test


appeared


scores


affected


emotionally


gain)


handicapped


inclu


examples.


I f


^ ^ a^ wa- 11,,-


4 .aenJn


I


FI


n rl L~lh rl


1.


I il











what


, where,


not, end,


first,


last


apparently


require


additional


empha


to aid


comprehen


ion.


Learning


abled


student


appeared


to benefit


gain)


from alterations


n line


length


Other


student


performed


similarly


on pa


ssages


appear


justified


that


unju


order


item


tified


manner.


presentation


not make


di fference


performance


category


student.


student


proficient with


task,


appears


to be


able


demonstrate


ability


regard


placement within


test.


similarly


answer


bubble


placement


appear


to affect


perform-


ance


type


student.


result


f observations


made


throughout


study,


appears


that


teachers


may wi


to give


cons


ideration


to the


importance


test


taking


skills


performance


f mildly


handicapped


students


enhanced


from


direct


nstru


tion


kill


as recog-


direction


learning


word


to follow written


(above,


different,


direction


hoose,


using


other),


hort


cuts


answering


reading


comprehen


question


Teachers


also


wish


fami liari


students


with


physical


layout


f the


test.


Conclusions


There


was a


igni ficant


difference


between modified


standard


nf t ho


t~nt-t1


toc


,4


I. ..-- n*I** IIl I'* ..


pyamni p


ciinhtpdt


favnr


~nA Hns


fa~t~


I.


.
.
. ..-


.











present


between


category


student


test


form.


can be


seen


from


data


presented


Appendix


was not


possible


to determine


ignifi


cancer


either


sex or race


on test


scores


to the


limited


sample


Result


st hoc


analy


however


indicated


that


the modifi-


cations


would


beneficial


instances


where ma


tery wa


an i


ssue.


Students


needing


demonstrate


mastery


kill


could


so on


percent more


test.


section


Gain


within


percentage


modified


point


test


could


than


seen


on the


on 80


standard


percent


ubskill


tested


with


modi field


test


contrast


standard


test.


Also,


certain modifications


appeared


ilitate


acqui


ition


of mastery


spec


ific


category e


of handicapped


students.


Modifications


physical


formatting


appear


to improve


test


scores


across


category


inclu


examples


appear


facilitate


cores


demon


hierarchical


tration


profit


arrangement


iency


items,


students


answer


bubble


only


placement,


unju


tified


line


length


boldface


type


reach


level


significance.


Trend


higher


test


scores


cia-


gain


were


noticed


however


use o


example


boldface


type


emotion-


ally


turbed


students


with


boldface


type


unju


tified


line


length


research


learning


that


abled


been


students.


previous


to the


done


limited


because


amount


results


of this


tudy


have


been


favorable


further


research


on thi


topic
















REFERENCES


Abeson, A., &
Education


Children


Zettel


for
1977


All
, 44


Handicapped


the quiet


Children


revolution


Act of


1975


The
exceptional


115-


Beattie, S.
grades
State


, & Algoz
three an


student


Gainesville,


ine,
five


sessment


sessment of


in analy
Test-I.


Department


minimum


competency


of modification


Final


Report:


ation,


1981.


to Florida


Contract


#080-187


Beck,


response
11, 109-


Achievement
procedures
113.


test


reliability


Journal


as a


function


Educational


pupil


urement,


1974,


Berry,


competency


testing


. High


hool


Journal,


1979,


166-17


Brenner, M. H
function


1964,


Test


difficulty,


of item difficulty
98-100.


reliability


order


crimination


Journal


Applied


ychol ogy,


Cashen, V. M
primary


age
157.


Rams eyer,
children.


Journal


use of


separate


answer


Educational


heet


urement,


by
1969,


Clark


, C.
pupil


use of


Journal


separate


answer


Educational


heet


urement,


testing
1968, 5,


low-learning


Clift, T. Th
remedial


Univer


Department,


regent


instruction


competency


high


tate


testing
school


of New


program:
credential


York,


tate


etenc


testing


Education


1979.


Copperman
and


learning


York


li teracy


Morrow,


hoax:


public
1978.


school


decline o
and what


reading,
we can do


writing,
about it


~-s-h-I~ A- S *-~ A- L..


,


n..__ 1


m


*,,


---L-


..-LI. I


I


L| A


i


.." m










Donohue v.
(App.


Copiague


Union


Free


hool


Distri


. 1978).


Erdmann, R.
letter


L., & Neal,
legibility,


resolution


Word


with


word


as parameters


legibility


size


Journal


word


as a


function


familiarity,


f Applied


Psychology,


1968,


409.


Ewing,
4


Minimum


issues


High


competency


school


Journal,


estinm
1979


, 63,


the
114-


handicapped:
119.


Major


Ferguson, G.
(3rd ed.


Stati


tical


New York


analyst
McGraw-


Hill,


psychology
1971.


and education


Flaugher,
under


. L., Melton,
typical test


Measurement,


& Myer


condi tions


1968,


Educational


Item
and


rearrangement
Psychological


-824.


Florida


Department of


and evaluation


Exceptional


tate


Education.


special
student


Florida,


resource


programs
programs


manual for
exceptional
overview.


he development
students (Vol.


Tallaha


see,


1979.


Florida
St


Department of


ate


trict


Divi


Education.


report


Public


school


tati


result


1 Report
series 81


, February


1980-81.
. Tallahssee,


1981.


Fonda, G.
1968


evaluation


large


type.


Outlook


Blind,


,62


Gaffney, R.
sheets


, & Maguire


with


1971,


103-


young


106.


children


optically


Journal


cored


Educational


test answer


sure


ment,


Gearheart, B. R.
information


Willenberg,
the special


Application


education


teacher


of pupil
(End ed.


assess


ment


Denver


Love,


1974.


Greenberg, L.
students


State


Test


development


procedure


state


Department


of Education


assess


ment


including


program


handicapped
Trenton, NJ


1980.


capped


Florida
students.


minimum competency


Exceptional


Children


testing
, 1980,


program
47. 186-


handi-


a~~i S. .. .


A-


fL


~~L .u.


1 flfl


a


I


i










Holliday
of


hi ng,


i teams


Partridge, L
on children.


1979,


Differential


Journal


sequencing


search


effects


clence


407-411


Kalu


ny, B. A. Competency
Education Unlimited,


handicapped


testing
1979, 1,


student.


Madau


clarifi


Kappan,


1981


action
, 63,


hearing
92-94.


negative


team


case.


Major


. W., & Michael, J.
her-made mathematic


relationship of
computational


achievement


kill


on a


to two


ways of recording
Educational and P


answers
sychologi


to two workspace arrangement
Measurement, 1975, 35, 1005-


s.
1009.


Margolis,
impul


Education,


Brannigan,


1978,


enner


crimination


-35.


performance


Modification
Journal of


f
pecdal


Marsh,


abled


Loui


II,


Gearheart,


adoles
: The


cent


G. K., & Gearheart,
Program alternatives


Mosby


Company


1978.


warning


secondary


school.


Marso, R. N.
Journal


Test


item


of Educational


arrangement,


Measurement,


ting
1970


time,
, 7,


performance.
118.


McCarthy, M. M.
Exceptional


McClung,
Cle


Minimum c
Children,


Competency


aring


House


Review,


:ompetency
1980, 47,


ting:


1977


, Il,


testing


166-


handicapped


students


175.


Potential


for discrimination


9-448.


McClung, M.
issues


Competency
Fordham Law


testing programs
Review, 1979, 47,


Legal
651-712


educational


McClung, M. S., & Pullin,
Clearinghouse Review,


. Competency
1978, 11, 922


testing


handicapped


students.


Morsink,


. (Ed.


Educational


DELTA:


Development


A design


for word


Corporation,


attack


growth.


Tulsa,


1977.


Muller
o0


, D.,


Calhoun


answer


-324.


heet mode.


Orling,
Journal


reliability


Educational


as a


surement


function


-- -


..


I


L ,L











ill,


Delta


summary
Kappan,


issues


1979


, 60,


minimum competency movement.


453.


Pabian,
Is
15


there


Education malpractice


legal


remedy


and minimal


England


competency


Review


testing:
, 1979,


erez,


Procedural


competency


testing


estigation.


Florida,


1980.


adaptation


Unpubli


format modification


earning dis
shed manusc


abled
rnipt,


student


Univ


ersity


in minimum


A clinical


outh


Peter


Francisco


Unified


hool


trict,


Rptr


(1976)


Pinkney, H.
House,


The minimum


1979,


competency movement


education


413-416.


Clearing


Popham, W. J
Kappan,


The
1981,


case
63,


for minimum


competency


testing.


Delta


89-9


Reichard, C.
material


1970,


Reid,


for the


, 363-


inve


educable mentally


tigation
retarded


format
Journal


reading
Reading,


366.


Safer,


Implications


hand capped


students


minimum


competency


Exceptional


tand


Children,


yards
1980


and
, 46,


testing
288-292.


Salvia,


& Yss


education


eldyke,
Boston:


Assessment


Houghton Mifflin,


special
1978.


remedial


Sawyer,
st


rategic


When


choice.


budgets


Indu


require


trial


compromise


Marketing,


, impact


most


1975,


haw,


1969


Print


for partial


ight.


London:


Library


Association,


irotnik, K., &
Application
Journal of


Wellington,


multiple matrix


Educational


rambling


content


ampli ng


urement,


1974,


achievement


experimental
1. 179-188.


testing


ign.


Smith, L. D
capped


& Jenkin
students.


Minimum


Exceptional


Child


competency
ren. 1980.


testing
46. 440


S C


and
-443


handi-


State


of Florida.


r..-


rida


statutes,


Chapter
----._A- .re


tion


a, lwn f


r-i


.... Ii,


J


FT


rl..__L1


n










Sykes, K. C. P
and large
impaired s
3. 97-105.


comparison
print in fa


students


ilitating


Education


effectiveness


reading


usually


standard


skill


print


Handicapped


ually
1971,


Tinker, M
Pres


Legibility
, 1963. (a


of print.


Ames


Iowa


* Iowa


State


Univer


Tinker,


Typography


Government


(training


Printing Office,


1963


series)
(b)


. Washington,


Tinker


reading


Patterson


Journal


Applied


Influence
sychology,


of type
1928,


form on


peed


359-368.


Watts,


competency testing


answer


Clearing


House,


1979,


Ysse


Idyke


remedial


., & Algo


zzine,


education.


Boston:


Critical


Houghton


issues


special


Mi fflin,


1982















APPENDIX


ELIGIBILITY


CRITERIA


Specific c


Learning


Disability


Specific


one or more of


learning


basic


abilities


-one


psychological


exhibits


processes


disorder


involved


under-


standing


or i


in di


spelling,

are due D


using


order


poken


or arithmetic.


mimarily


written


listening,


They


visual,


hearing


thinking


include


language.


reading


learning


handi


or motor


ese may


talking,


problem


be mani-


writing,


which


to mental


retardation


emotional


turbance


or to


an environmental


depriva-


tion.


Cri t


Eligibility


student must


school


age.


Evidence of


disorder


in one or more of


basic


psychological


cesses.


Based


on a


student


ected


level


functioning


score


standard


deviations


or 1


below the


mean


process


area


or a


score of


one-


half


standard


deviation


or 1


below


the mean


A


LI


...











processes


sensory


integrated


cesses.


cases


where


score of


standard


perc


nt or


deviation


less


not available,


student'


expectancy


one process


area


80 percent or


less


three


or more


process


areas


used.


Evidence


student


process


expected


strength


level


or above


functioning.


more


than


process


test


instrument


used


document


deficit or


strength,


results


must


con-


tently


deficits


or s


strength


same


cess


area.


If more


than one


level


function-


obtained


used


Only


mean


establi


subtests


level


deficit


functioning


or s


appropri at


will


strength.


student


expectancy


should


used


place


purpo


ses.


student


not qualify for


eligibility


following


subtests


only


ones


that


indicate


process


strength


or defi


Detroit


Test of


Learning


Abilities


Free


Social
Social
Number


Association


Adju
Adju


stment A
stment B


Abi lity


Illinois


Test


ycholingui


tic Abilities


M L. ten-n- nn~~l


q


*


F,










Evidence


academic


deficits


Based


on the


student'


expected


level


functioning,


core of


percent


expectancy


or below


third


through


ixth


grade


percent


expectancy


or below


seventh


through


ninth


grade


or 65


cent


expectancy


or below for


tenth


through


twel fth


grade


required


one or more


following


academic c


areas


reading


writing,


arithmetic,


pelling.


students


kindergarten


grade,


evidence must


percent


expectancy


presented


or below on


that achievement


preacademi


which


require


teni ng


, thinking


or speaking


kill


students


second


grade,


evid


nce must


ented


that


achievement


percent


xpectancy


or below


on preacademic


asks


which


require


tening,


thinking,


or speaking


ficit


kills.


either writing


student may


or spelling


placed


or both.


more


than


academic


instrument


used


document


weakness


results must


consistently


deficits


in th


same


academic


area.


If more


than one


level


functioning


obtained,


the mean


level


functioning


will


used


establi


h weakn


ess.


Evidence


that


learning


problems


not due


primarily










or evidence


indicator


student


intellectual


potential.


students


with


process


deficits,


acuity


least


20/70


better


eye with


best


possible


correction or


evidence


that


student


inability


perform


adequately


on tasks


which


require


cess


not due


poor


acuity


students


with


auditory


process


or language


deficit


auditory


acuity


not more


than


30 decibel


better ear


unaided


or evidence


that


student


inability


perform


adequately


on ta


require auditory


processing


or language


poor


auditory


acuity


student


with


a motor


handicap


evidence


that


inability


perform


adequately


on tas


which


assess


basic


psyc


hological


processes


not due


the motor


hand


cap.


students


exhibit


istent


cons


tent


severe


emotional


perform


sturbance


adequately


evidence


on ta


that


which


thei r


inability


assess


psycho-


logical


processes


emotional


turbance.


Documented


evidence which


indicates


that


viable


general


educa-


tional


alternatives


have


been


attempted


found


to be


ineffective


in meeting


student


educational


needs











Educable


Mentally


Retarded


Educable mentally


retarded--one who


mildly


impaired


intel-


lectual


adaptive


behavior


and whos


development


reflects


reduced


rate of


retarded


learning


The measured


student generally


fall


intellig


between


nce of


two (


an educable mentally


three


standard


deviation


below


the mean,


asses


adaptive


behavior


fall


below


cultural


expectations.


Criteri a


Eligibility


The measured


level


intellectual


functioning,


as determined


performance


on an individual


t of


intelligence,


between


three


standard


deviations


below


mean.


standard


rror of


measurement may


cons


idered


individual


cases


profile


intellectual


functioning


shows


cons


tent


ub-average


performance


a majority


areas


evaluated.


assessed


level


adaptive


behavior


below


cultural


expectations.


ub-average


performance on


standardized measure of


academic


achievement


demonstrated.


Emotionally


Handicapped


Emotionally


handicapped--one who


after


receiving


upportive


educational


assi


tance


couns


eling


servi


available


to all


1.W-I C. S m S


Ill


.


- m


-I..~~.~I- Ir


I II I


I




Full Text
THE EFFECT OF PHYSICAL TEST FORMAT MODIFICATIONS
ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THIRD GRADE MILDLY HANDICAPPED
AND NORMAL STUDENTS
BY
SUSAN BEATTIE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1982

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Blizzard of '76 in Buffalo, New York, inflicted much hard¬
ship on many of the area citizens. Fortunately, it had a more
positive effect on our family. It became the fundamental impetus
for our moving to a warm and sunny climate. This move to Gainesville,
Florida, brought several wonderful people into our lives, for which
we will always be thankful. These individuals have made our five
years at the university memorable, and some will have an everlasting
effect on our future. My deepest thanks go to so many, especially
to my chairman, Bob Algozzine. To know him is to love him. His
naivete*and optimism are refreshing, his talent awe inspiring, and
his personality enviable. Thank you for personifying the professional
expertise and standards toward which we all should strive. Your
friendship, understanding, and kindness will always be remembered by
our family. You are the best! And to Kate, thanks for sharing him
with us for so long.
To my committee members, thank you for your support, encourage¬
ment, and tolerance. A special thank you is extended to Cathy Morsink.
She is a wonderful example of how a competent and talented woman
can make an impact in the profession of special education. I am so
glad you came to U of F. And, to Rex Schmid, thank you for your
editorial thoroughness, your "effectiveness", and your incredible
ii

sense of humor. When life becomes difficult we will remember the
"pulled hamstrings", smile, and forge on.
Sincere thanks are also extended to those individuals who
provided access to the population of special students and assisted
in data collection. Without the help of Maryellen Maher, Rosalie
Boone, Janis Wilson, and Maureen Gale this study would have never
come to full fruition. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. And
to two very wonderful friends, Gayle McBride and Chip Voorneveld, I
could never express how much your caring and concern have meant to
me. You are so special and I appreciate all the times that you
were there for me. An enormous amount of thanks go to my friend and
world's best typist, Leila Cantara. I will always respect and admire
her ability and high standards.
And to my family, "thank you" seems hardly enough for all you've
done. To my parents, I will always be grateful for your instilling
the philosophy of "you can do anything you put your mind to." It
gave me the strength to endure many difficult times. To my son,
Matthew, thank you for being such a wonderful baby. You never
fussed at staying with grandparents, babysitters, neighbors, and
friends so that I could study and write. I appreciate it and love
you so much.
Unfortunately, there are no expressions of thanks and love
great enough to extend to my best friend, my love, and husband, John.
Without him I would fail to exist. Thank you for tolerating the moods,
understanding the frustration, minimizing the chaos, and always being

there. Your professional expertise was invaluable and certainly
made my road easier to travel. Thank you for coming into my life
and bringing a happiness very few people are fortunate enough to
experience.
And last, but definitely not least, a special thank you to
Joshua who was responsible for my initially undertaking this degree.
I'll never forget you.
i v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
Current Interest in Minimum Competency Programs 2
Minimum Competency Testing Within a Competency Based
Education Framework 3
Reactions to Minimum Competency Testing 5
Impact of MCT on Handicapped Individuals 8
Test Modifications and Competency Testing 12
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose 13
Related Questions 14
Limitations 15
Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 17
Summary 18
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20
Background 20
Verified Test Modifications 22
Print 22
Line Length 23
Item Grouping 25
v

Physical Layout 26
Administration 28
Answer Format 29
Unverified Modification; Increased Example/Skill Ratio ... 31
Characteristic Needs of Handicapped Individuals 32
Current Research in MCT Modifications for Handicapped
Individuals 33
State Research Studies 36
University of Florida Research 40
Summary 42
CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 45
Method 45
Experimental Procedures 48
Materials 48
Setting 50
Variables 50
Hypotheses 51
Data Analysis 52
Summary 52
CHAPTER IV RESULTS 54
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 70
Discussion of Findings 72
Test Form Analysés 72
Category Analyses 73
Post Hoc Analyses 73
Observations 75
vi

Implications 78
Conclusions 79
REFERENCES 81
APPENDIX A ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 86
B PARENT PERMISSION SLIPS 92
C SAMPLE TEST—STANDARD 96
D SAMPLE TEST—MODIFIED 101
E MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES BY CATEGORY, RACE, AND
SEX 106
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 107
vii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE EFFECT OF PHYSICAL TEST FORMAT MODIFICATIONS ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF THIRD GRADE MILDLY HANDICAPPED
AND NORMAL STUDENTS
By
Susan Beattie
August, 1982
Chairman: Robert F. Algozzine
Major Department: Special Education
Tests are an integral part of our educational process. In view
of Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act,
it becomes crucial that diagnostic instruments are valid, culturally
fair, and unbiased. Caution must be exercised to insure that the
targeted behaviors are the ones actually being assessed. Test
results should reflect cognitive ability and not the individual's
disability.
In an effort to make tests fair to handicapped populations, such
modifications as head pointers, braille type, and alterations in
administration and setting have been instituted. Little systematic
study, however, has been directed towards mildly handicapped students
or physical test item format modifications. The current study investi¬
gated the effect of five physical format modifications on the perform¬
ance of mildly handicapped and normal third grade students. The
vm

modifications included alterations in line lengths, inclusion of
examples, the use of boldface type for emphasis, placement of
answer bubbles, and the arrangement of items in a hierarchy of
progressive difficulty. Eighty students were randomly selected
from four populations; i.e., normal, learning disabled (LD), emotion¬
ally handicapped (EH), and educable mentally retarded (EMR) students.
The students were matched within each category according to reading
ability and then randomly assigned to either the modified or the stand¬
ard test group. Data were analyzed at a level of significance of
a = .05.
The results indicated that overall total test scores were signifi¬
cantly higher on the modified test than on the standard test. There
were no significant differences between test form scores for four out
of five modification subtests. Performance scores on the example
subtest however, were significantly higher on the modified version
than on the standard test version. Performance scores for emotion¬
ally handicapped and LD students were statistically similar as were
the scores for normal and EH students. EMR students consistently
scored lower than other categories of students.
Results of a post hoc analysis indicated that modifications of
physical test format may have some merit in mastery level situations.
Mean performance scores on the modified test surpassed mastery criteria
for 32 percent of the subskill sections failed by the students taking
the standard test.
It appears that simple modifications can be made in minimum
competency tests that affect the performance of students. These
IX

modifications appeared to have a greater effect on the performance of
handicapped students than on that of normal students. Continued
research in the area of minimum competency test modifications appears
warranted.
x

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
America spends $70 billion annually on education, and admin¬
isters over 250 million tests. As a result of such enormous expen¬
ditures of time and money, one may assume that America is a fully
literate society. Unfortunately, this appears to be untrue. A
congressional survey revealed that 13 percent of our 17-year-old
youths are functional illiterates (Pabian, 1979). Another survey
published in 1973 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
(HEW) supported these data and stated that an estimated one million
American youths, between the ages of 12 and 17, can not read at a
fourth grade level and can therefore be labeled as illiterate
(cited in McClung, 1977). Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1982) cited
Copperman's report that America's academic performance and standards
have shown a marked decline since the mid-1960's.
Today's eighth grader reads approximately as well as the
average seventh grader just ten years ago and computes
about as well as the average sixth grader of that period.
On college admissions tests only about a quarter of our
current high-school graduates attain the level recorded
by the average high school graduate in the early 1960's.
(Copperman, 1978, p. 15)
Several explanations have been offered in regard to America's
educational plight. The National Academy of Education panel has
1

2
reported that "there is growing evidence that shifts in policy,
expectations, and behavior within schools themselves have contrib¬
uted to the documented decline in writing skills and aptitude test
scores" (Berry, 1979, p. 167). The low performance level in our
schools has also been attributed to the amount of on task learning
time. According to Berry (1979), students tend to be on task for
approximately only 30 percent of the instructional day. The impact
of this statistic is magnified when one realizes that only 60-70
percent of the total school day is actually devoted to learning.
In addition, there appears to be a decline in the number of students
enrolled in core academic subjects and an increase in the number of
optional courses available (Berry, 1979; Copperman, 1978).
Public criticism and rigid surveillance of our schools would
appear to be justified if students who graduate after 12 years of
education are truly unable to read and write. Even with the acknowledge¬
ment that there are other variables (such as home, family, and community
influences) that do contribute to an individual's achievement potential,
it would appear that our schools must still assume the primary
responsibility for graduating illiterates (Pinkney, 1979).
Current Interest in Minimum Competency Programs
Educators, administrators, legal consultants, parents, and
employers have become increasingly concerned about the mastery of
skills demonstrated by graduating high school students. This concern
has been fostered not only by the previously cited statistics, but also

3
by the gradual decline in Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores
(Copperman, 1978) and recent litigation in the courts (Donohue v.
Copiague Union Free School District, 1978; Peter W. v. San Francisco
Unified School District, 1976).
In an effort to reduce illiteracy statistics and eliminate the
possibility of future litigation, many educators and concerned
members of the community have focused their attention on minimum
competency programs. Although the minimum competency testing (MCT)
component has drawn the most attention recently, it is but one
component of the more global concept of competency based education
(CBE).
Minimum Competency Testing Within A Competency
Based Education Framework
Competency based education (CBE) is comprised of five major com¬
ponents. They include (a) establishment of educational objectives,
(b) development of instructional process, (c) competency testing, (d)
provision for remedial instruction, and (e) program evaluation and
reconceptualization (Watts, 1979). It is suggested that the five
components are interdependent and the incorporation of just one or
two components would.be punitive to any student.
Educators who advocate competency based education foresee a
process that will ensure the acquisition of fundamental knowledge.
They contend that the attainment of a standard set of skills and
abilities can enhance a student's chances for leading a happy and
productive life. They argue that if used properly, CBE can also assist
in the identification and correction of weaknesses in our educational

4
system. Possibly, competency based education could facilitate
America's effort to reestablish the priority and high esteem of its
educational system.
The curriculum objectives and instructional process within CBE
are measured by competency testing scores. The competency tests are
criterion-referenced and measure a student's performance relative to
a specified set of behaviors. They differ from norm-referenced tests
in that they do not compare student performance to an established
standard. Norm referenced tests discriminate between individuals,
whereas criterion referenced tests can be regarded as the best indi¬
cation of what is being taught in the classroom (Denninger, 1979).
The testing distinguishes those students who need additional remedial
instruction. It also provides teachers and administrators with
feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching methods being employed
and the appropriateness of the program.
The goal of competency testing is to improve programs, not to
fail students, point an accusing finger at students or teachers, or
withhold diplomas. Instead, MCT allows school personnel to document
how well a student is prepared to move from grade to grade, and to
ascertain those specific skills any high school graduate brings to
our working society. This is in contrast to a current trend where
the only requirement for graduation is time spent in school and the
completion of an established number of courses.
The minimum competency testing movement has received strong
support from numerous legislators and state boards of education.

5
According to Popham (1981) nearly 40 states have established minimum
competency testing programs covering the basic skills of reading,
writing, and mathematics. Seventeen of those states have also
established competency testing as a requirement for high school
graduation (Neill, 1979).
Reactions to Minimum Competency Testing
Positive effects. According to Popham (1981) there are several
positive attributes to the MCT program. Pinkney (1979) has identified
the positive characteristics specific to Florida's program;
1. Both students and teachers have been provided with a list of
exactly which skills are to be mastered by the students and a time¬
table for accomplishing these objectives. Ideally, the basic skills
criteria are decided upon by a diverse group of individuals including
teachers, administrators, professors, parents, employers, and other
professionals.
2. There has been a renewed interest in learning in school.
Cognitive.development has returned as the primary justification for
the existence of schools. The supplementary frills have been minimized
and educating children has become the highest priority.
3. The MCT program has created a new awareness among parents
in regard to their children's education. The realization that their
children will be required to demonstrate mastery of basic skills at
the 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th grade has stimulated parents to monitor
continual progress.

6
4. There has been a reorganization and greater utilization of
human resources throughout the state based on the needs of the
student. Specificity in purpose has contributed to greater
efficiency in the performance of teaching personnel. Program
planning and education procedures established by administrators
have also shown marked improvements.
5. Standardized tests measure students against students. In
contrast, MCT measures the mastery of skills. This characteristic
can be used to regroup students by skill levels rather than by age,
permit report cards to be based on continuums, and allow each
student to learn at his/her own pace. If executed with caution,
these changes could lessen a student's feeling of failure and enhance
the chance of success.
Pabian (1979) noted that in the early 60's, the quality of
teaching in the urban ghetto was relatively low, with 40 percent of
the high school graduates being classified as functional illiterates.
The Pygmalion effect dominated as teachers, observing students having
difficulty learning academics, attributed the difficulty to socio¬
economic factors and stopped trying to teach the impossible. Pinkney
(1979) feels the MCT program in Florida has counteracted this Pygmalion
effect. He maintains that the teachers' expectation level for students
has increased and that the students are working harder to learn.
Negative effects. On the other hand, there are educators
who express a concern that MCT will have negative effects on our
educational system (Madaus, 1981). Pinkney (1979) addressed the

7
negative issues which surround MCT; he included the following in
his discussion:
1. There is a fear that minimum competencies may become
maximum competencies. Critics infer that such advanced courses
as Calculus, Chemistry, Literature, and World History may eventually
be eliminated from the school curriculum.
2. There is a concern that a concentrated emphasis on basic
academic skills may reduce interest in other disciplines, such as
music, art, and physical education.
3. There also may be a negative stigma associated with those
students requiring remedial classes. As a consequence, some opponents
of MCT fear students may become discouraged at the prospect of failing
the MCT, and choose to drop out of school.
4. Some educators fear there will be an abusive use of the test
results. Improper use of scores can segregate groups of students,
contribute to poor self-concepts, and act as a barrier for future
employment.
Other individuals are concerned that the MCT movement has been
implemented too quickly and without necessary precautions. McClung
(1977), an education law consultant and staff attorney for the Center
of Law and Education, Inc., has listed several legal and educational
issues that may be hazardous to both students and schools. These
issues include (a) potential racial discrimination, (b) remediation
component (tracking of minorities), (c) technical adequacy of test
(instructional and curricular validity), (d) adequate phasing-in

8
period, (e) MCT as a requirement for graduation, and (f) negligence
issues. McClung stresses the fact that these issues are merely
potential problems that warrant further inspection and considera¬
tion by policy makers.
Impact of MCT on Handicapped Individuals
The handicapped individual is protected from unfair and dis¬
criminatory practices by the Federal Constitution, various statutes,
and regulations. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
guarantees all individuals the equal protection of the law. Section
504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112)
prohibits discrimination, denial of benefits, or the exclusion of
a handicapped person from an educational program or opportunity solely
on the basis of a handicap. The handicapped individual is also pro¬
tected from unfair educational practices, especially with regard to
assessment, by the provisions of Public Law (P.L.) 94-142, The
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Abeson & Zettel,
1977). These laws provide a fundamental basis that ensures the
right of the handicapped student to participate to his/her maximum
ability in any and all educational programs. Any approach a state
may adopt to accommodate the handicapped students in MCT must fulfill
the requirements of existing legislation.
McClung and Pul 1in (1978) state there are four areas of legal
concern for the handicapped population in the implementation of a
minimum competency testing program. These include (a) exemptions,

(b) individualized determinations, (c) differential diplomas and
standards, and (d) differential assessment procedures.
9
Exemptions for handicapped students. The extent to which handi¬
capped students should be required to pass (or be held exempt from)
a competency test as a prerequisite to a high school diploma is an
important concern in the area of MCT. The National Association of
State Directors of Special Education (1979) indicated that of the 17
states currently requiring competency testing prior to high school
graduation, 6 require all or selected categories of handicapped
students to take the competency test. The remaining 11 states have
not specified any policies regarding the handicapped student. These
results are congruent with the survey findings of Smith and Jenkins
(1980) that the majority of states have not "established or finalized"
their positions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of handicapped
students from the MCT programs.
Ewing (1979) refers to 11 classifications of handicapped
individuals (speech impaired, mentally retarded, deaf, hard of hear¬
ing, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, ortho-
pedically impaired, other health impaired, deaf-blind, multi-handicapped,
and learning disabled) and indicates that the "heterogeneity
of the handicapped population prohibits any reasonable expectation
that handicapped students be either systematically included or excluded
from competency test requirements" (p. 115). For example, it would
be difficult to legally justify the exclusion of an academically
competent handicapped child from MCT on the basis of physical

10
confinement to a wheelchair, and yet realistic and fair to exempt
a profoundly retarded individual.
Individualized determinations. It would appear that no uniform
approach for all handicapped children would be equitable when types
and severity of handicapping condition are considered (Denninger, 1979;
Ewing, 1979; McClung & Pullin, 1978). For example, any attempt to
establish a general policy that would be equitable to both a mildly
speech impaired student and a seriously emotionally disturbed indivi¬
dual would appear impossible. As a consequence, it would seem most
appropriate that decisions regarding student participation in MCT
programs be made on an individual basis. All handicapped students,
however, should have the opportunity to participate in the MCT program
if they desire, and any school district that fails to provide that
option may be in violation of P.L. 93-112 (McClung, 1979). The
process of individualized determinations also provides educators with
an opportunity to become more aware of the wide range of ability and
achievement levels within the handicapped population.
Differential diplomas and standards. Another issue affecting the
handicapped population is the awarding of differential diplomas and
the establishment of differential standards. McClung (1979) charac¬
terizes a differential diploma as being distinguishable in color,
shape, or wording from a standard diploma. Differential standards
are usually less stringent than the standards required for nonhandi-
capped students.
McClung and Pullin (1978) again emphasize the need for individual¬
ized determinations. School personnel, policy makers, and parents need

11
to decide which of three general approaches would be best for each
handicapped student. Some handicapped students will have no
problems complying with standard procedures and obtaining a
standard diploma. Other students may need differential standards
in order to earn a standard diploma. This could be accomplished by
using the student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and design¬
ing a modified competency program that would meet the special needs
and capabilities of the student. Other students may be so severely
handicapped that differential diplomas and differential standards
would be the most appropriate alternative.
These three options assure handicapped individuals the property
right of obtaining the most appropriate diploma. This becomes
critical in light of Smith and Jenkins' (1980) warning that issuance
of a differential diploma or certificate of attendance could become
a source of stigma to a handicapped individual. According to a U.S.
Department of Labor report, a high school diploma is required for
entry into virtually all jobs (Safer, 1980).
Differential assessment procedures. This final issue has far
reaching implications not only for the success of the minimum competency
testing movement, but for basic educational principles and legal
equality. Many mildly handicapped individuals have, almost by
definition, difficulty taking standardized tests (Smith & Jenkins,
1980). How can school personnel effectively measure levels of knowledge
when the student's responses may be adversely affected by the instru¬
ment used? It is essential that each student's achievement be measured

12
and not the handicapping condition (Gearheart & Willenberg, 1974;
Marsh, Gearheart, & Gearheart, 1978; McCarthy, 1980; Salvia &
Ysseldyke, 1978). For example, traditionally most competency
testing programs have been restricted to paper and pencil tests.
Educators must be able to verify that this type of assessment
accurately measures the competencies being taught and fulfills
standards of test reliability and validity. Otherwise, it becomes
the legal responsibility of policy makers to eliminate potential
discrimination against handicapped individuals and devise differ¬
ential assessment procedures.
Test Modifications and Competency Testing
Research concerning test modifications appears to be relatively
limited in nature. In addition to a paucity of data based studies,
there has also been a tendency to narrowly restrict the target popula¬
tions to adults, the visually impaired, and the physically handicapped.
Traditional test modifications for these students have been braille or
enlarged print, the use of a head pointer, or an aide to transcribe
answers.
Test modifications for the mildly handicapped student have
typically been "procedural" or environmental in nature. Examples of
such modifications include a reduction in group size, a change in
administrative setting, or a waiver of time limits. Researchers are
now, however, becoming aware of the possible need to modify the
actual test itself. This has been demonstrated through the modifica¬
tions of the minimum competency tests administered in New Jersey and

13
Florida. Examples of such modifications include print size, audio
support, grouping of test items in a progressive hierarchy, methods
for recording answers, adaptations in line length, inclusion of
examples, and realistic representations.
Statement of the Problem
There is much controversy regarding the educational practice of
minimum competency testing. Frequently debated issues for the normal
students include legal ramifications, minority rights, comparability
of curricula, and implementation procedures. For handicapped learners,
however, there are additional problems that may take precedence over
these basic issues. The performance of handicapped and non-handicapped
students will likely be different; it is assumed that the difference is
due to the students' handicaps and not the circumstances of testing.
However, failure to consider possible sources of performance differences
(other than student abilities) may be a major source of bias in assess¬
ment. Such factors as inappropriate test construction or item selection,
as well as problems in the general testing procedures, may contribute
to poor performance of the exceptional child and the inaccurate assess¬
ment of his/her fundamental content knowledge.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of
physical test construction modifications on the performance of third
grade mildly handicapped (learning disabled, educable mentally retarded,

14
and emotionally handicapped) and normal students. The effects of
five modifications were measured within the three groups of mildly
handicapped students and one group of nonhandicapped learners.
The independent variables in this study were type of student
and test type. Students were characterized as normal, learning dis¬
abled (LD), emotionally handicapped (EH), or educable mentally
retarded (EMR); criteria used for determination of such mildly handi¬
capping conditions as LD, EH, and EMR are listed in Appendix A. Tests
comprised of standard and modified formats were used; the modifications
included (a) the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of
progressive difficulty, (b) the arrangement of line lengths in an
unjustified manner, (c) the introduction of examples and directions
for each new skill change, (d) the placement of answer bubbles to
the right of each foil, and (e) the use of boldface type for emphasis.
The dependent variable in this study was the raw score indicating the
student's performance on the total test or selected items.
Related Questions
This study was designed to investigate the effects of physical
test construction modifications on the performance of selected elemen¬
tary school aged children. Specifically, the following questions were
addressed:
1. What effect does test item modification have on the total
test performance of mildly handicapped and normal children?
2. What effect does the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy
of progressive difficulty have on the test performance of mildly handi¬
capped children and the performance of normal children?

15
3. What effect do unjustified line lengths have on the test
performance of mildly handicapped children and the performance of
normal children?
4. What effect does the introduction of examples and directions
for each new skill change have on the test performance of mildly
handicapped children and the performance of normal children?
5. What effect does placement of answer bubbles to the right
side of foils have on the test performance of mildly handicapped
children and the performance of normal children?
6. What effect does the use of boldface type have on test
performance of mildly handicapped children and the performance of
normal children?
Limitations
This study included third grade mildly handicapped and regular
classroom students from Alachua County and Orange County School
Systems in north-central and central Florida, respectively. The
handicapped students were identified as learning disabled (LD),
educable mentally retarded (EMR), and emotionally handicapped (EH)
according to the regulations of the Florida State Department of
Education (see Appendix A). As a result of variations in identifi¬
cation criteria between states, the handicapped students in this study
may not be representative of other handicapped students throughout
the United States. Likewise, educational and cultural differences
due to geographic factors may also affect the representativeness of
both handicapped and regular classroom students in this study.

16
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study included (a) the use of third
grade students and (b) the county regulations and criteria that
were used to identify and classify the randomly selected sample
of normal and handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) students. Additional
delimitations were that the participants were enrolled in selected
elementary public schools from the cities of Gainesville and
Orlando, Florida. The Gainesville schools included Duval, Stephen
Foster, Lake Forest, Prairie View, M.K. Rawlings, Archer, Shell,and
Metcalfe elementary schools. Participating schools from the city
of Orlando were Pine Hills, Ridgewood Park, Hiawassee, Blankner,
Cherokee, Fern Creek, Lake Como, Chickasaw, Eccleston, and Lake
Weston.
The cities of Gainesville and Orlando are located in Alachua
County and Orange County, respectively. The sample population was
representative of the southeastern region of the United States,
specifically north-central and central Florida. A final delimita¬
tion of this study was that the test was a paper and pencil task
measuring a limited sample of behaviors. These behaviors included
the knowledge of fractions, measurement, coin value, picture sequen¬
cing, alphabetical ordering, and math word problems in the example
subtest; reading comprehension (not, end, pronouns), word opposites,
and following directions in the boldface type subtest; two digit
addition, math word problems, reading comprehension, and spelling in
the answer bubble subtest; vertical and horizontal addition and

17
and subtraction of single and two digit numbers in the hierarchy
subtest; and reading comprehension, money word problems, and number
word problems in the altered line length subtest.
Definition of Terms
Boldface type is darkened print that draws attention to
itself and can be used for items requiring additional emphasis.
The educable mentally retarded (EMR) student is one who is
mildly impaired in intellectual and adaptive behavior and whose
development reflects a reduced rate of learning. The measured
intelligence of an educable mentally retarded student generally falls
between two and three standard deviations below the mean, and the
assessed adaptive behavior falls below age and cultural expectations
(Florida Department of Education, 1979).
The emotionally handicapped (EH) student is one who, after receiv¬
ing supportive educational assistance and counseling services available
to all students, still exhibits persistent and consistent severe
behavioral disabilities which consequently disrupt the student's
own learning process. This is the student whose inability to achieve
adequate academic progress or satisfactory interpersonal relation¬
ships cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or
intellectual deficits (Florida Department of Education, 1979).
The learning disabled (LD) student is one who exhibits a dis¬
order in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved
in the understanding or in using spoken and written language. These
may be manifested in disorders of listening, thinking, reading,

18
talking, writing, spelling, or arithmetic. They do not include
learning problems which are primarily due to visual, hearing, or
motor handicaps, to mental retardation, to emotional disturbance,
or to an environmental deprivation (Florida Department of Education,
1979).
The normal student is one who appears to be functioning within
normal limits in the classroom and is not eligible for additional
educational services.
Unjustified lines are created by the arrangement of type and
uniform spacing so that lines are set according to their natural
length. This is opposed to justified line lengths where alterations
in spacing cause every line to end at the same distance from the
right-hand edge of the paper. Justified lines are traditionally
found in textbooks, newspapers, and magazines.
Summary
Testing appears to be an inescapable phenomenon in today's educa¬
tional system. Each year over 250 million standardized tests are
administered to America's 44 million school children (Ysseldyke &
Algozzine, 1982). The positive benefits to be gained from testing
include provision of additional educational support services, appro¬
priate educational placement, and curriculum modifications.
Unfortunately, tests can also have negative implications. Inaccurate
assessments or interpretations can result in misdiagnosis, inappro¬
priate placement, and inefficient instructional goals and techniques.
Some of these negative results may be due to the unintentional
measurement of a child's inability to respond to the stimulus-

19
response format. In such instances the test results may not
accurately represent the child's cognitive proficiency in the various
skill areas. Instead, they may represent the inability to handle
the "standard" stimulus-response testing format.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of
physical test format modifications on the performance of mildly
handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) and normal students in the third grade.
The modifications included alterations in line length, grouping of
similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty, an increased
ratio of examples per skill change, placement of answer bubbles, and
the use of boldface type for emphasis. It was anticipated that
these test modifications would result in differential performance
scores.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The following literature review examines the nature and extent
of current knowledge concerning physical test modifications for
normal and mildly handicapped (LD, EMR, EH) populations. It
specifically addresses (a) print, (b) line length, (c) the arrange¬
ment of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty, (d)
physical layout (workspace, cells per page), (e) administration
(directions, increased ratio of example per skill change), and (f)
answer format (separate answer sheet, answer bubble placement). A
review of current research in the area of minimum competency test
modifications and characteristic needs of handicapped individuals is
also included.
Background
Information in this review was obtained from several sources.
These included (a) an ERIC search, (b) examination of the Current
Index of Journals in Education (CIJE), and (c) examination of the
Educational Index. The descriptor utilized for the ERIC search was
"test construction modifications." The descriptors used for the
second and third sources were "test construction," "test modifications,"
20

21
"testing the handicapped," "learning disabilities (LD)," "emotion¬
ally handicapped (EH)," "educable mentally retarded (EMR)," "minimum
competency testing," "reading achievement," and "print/type."
Additional sources included Dissertation Abstracts International and
the card catalog system in the University of Florida library (for
textbooks on print and typography).
The review of the literature revealed that the area of physical
test format modifications, specifically designed for elementary mildly
handicapped children, has received little attention by researchers.
The sample populations of studies varied in age of students (elemen¬
tary, secondary, college, and adult), handicap (normal individuals,
visually impaired, LD, EH, EMR), and degree of handicap (severe,
moderate, and mild). Due to this paucity of research material specific
to age and type of educational handicap, the selection criterion for
inclusion in the literature review was very broad. A decision was
made to include all accessible information regarding test construction
principles and their application. This information, restricted to
neither age nor handicap, was collected from data based research,
survey studies, authority based good practices, and expert opinion.
Therefore, the'1iterature for each test modification does not
always address the targeted population of the current study. In fact
the test modification of increased ratio of examples per skill change
was not even addressed in the literature. Consequently, the studies
will be reported as either "verified" (substantiated by expert opinion
or data based research) or "unverified" (not specifically addressed
by research but suggested by professionals). Those modificationds that

22
can be categorized as verified are (a) print (boldface), (b) line
length, (c) item grouping, (d) physical layout, (e) administration
(directions), and (f) answer format (in booklet response, answer
bubble placement). The one modification that must be classified
as unverified is the increased ratio of examples per skill change.
Verified Test Modifications
Print
In relationship to the process of reading, print is regarded as
a crucial element (Fonda, 1968; Sykes, 1971; Tinker, 1963a). Fonda
(1968) stated that such factors as style of print, blackness of the
ink, contrast of white non-glossy paper to the ink, and appropriate
illumination facilitate reading. Tinker (1963b) used these same
features to define visibility. He stated that visibility was affected
by the combination of the brightness of the paper, the darkness of the
ink, and the thickness of the strokes in the letter. He also noted
that an increase in the visibility can make the type appear larger.
According to Shaw (1969) and Sykes (1971) legibility of print
is controlled by such characteristics as quality, size, weight, and
spacing. Erdmann and Neal (1968) stated that legibility increases
with the height and resolution of the character. The presence of
serifs (the horizontal and vertical strokes that are attached to the
end points of basic letters) and simplicity also contribute to this
legibility of print (Tinker, 1963a).

23
There appears to be a general consensus among experts regarding
the use of upper and lower case letters, italics, and boldface type.
Tinker (1963a) and Craig (1971) recommended the use of boldface type
as an effective means for emphasizing an important concept or word,
or for drawing attention to a critical element. The use of lower
case letters is preferred to upper case or italics since lower case
can be read more quickly (Tinker & Patterson, 1928; Tinker, 1963a)
and more easily (Craig, 1971). Craig (1971) contended that lower¬
case letters facilitate the process of reading due to a presence of
greater visual cues. This can be seen by splitting a word horizontally.
The reader receives more decoding clues from lowercase ctialr' than
uppercase CHAIR. Sawyer (1975) suggested that words not be typed in
all capital (uppercase) letters and Tinker (1963a) reported that
capitals and italics retarded the speed of reading.
Line Length
According to Tinker (1963b) the normal line width is 39 characters,
although this may vary up to 65 depending on different sizes of type
(Craig, 1971). Line length has an important effect on reading. Lines
that are too short can break up phrases and logical thought units
(Craig, 1971). On the other hand, there are also disadvantages to
lines that are too long. Excessively long lines make it difficult
to find the beginning of the next line (Tinker, 1963a) and long lines
can also cause fatigue (Craig, 1971).
Lines of print are usually set by printers to give a "justified"
or even appearance. Justified lines have even left and right margins

24
and are usually found in newspapers, magazines, and books. Para¬
graphs with justified line lengths approximate a box with parallel
sides. The printers are able to create this even appearance by
altering the spacing between individual letters and words.
Craig (1971), however, suggested that equal spacing between
words creates greater legibility. The equal spacing creates uneven
or "unjustified" line lengths and lines take on a jagged effect.
The jagged effect has texture, adds visual interest to the page,
contributes to the ease of reading, and reduces the difficulty of
locating the beginning of the next line (Craig, 1971). Results of
a study by Reichard and Reid (1970) indicated that retarded children
demonstrated increased reading rates and improved reading comprehen¬
sion scores on reading passages that were set in unjustified lines with
double spaced leading (i.e., space between lines of print).
Leading is the amount of white space between lines of print. It
is another factor that can alter the effectiveness of line lengths.
Too little or too much spacing can be distracting. Craig (1971) stated
that too much leading can cause a. drifting effect and the type takes on
a grayish cast (as opposed to true black). He recommended that lead¬
ing between lines be greater than the spacing between the individual
words. Appropriate leading is also responsible for increasing visibility
on a page when the paper is low in brightness or the reading light is
poor (Tinker, 1963b).
Although Craig (1971) stated that proper leading is more a matter
of visual judgment than specific mathematical determinations of space,

25
there are certain characteristics that do regulate the amount of
leading necessary. He felt that more leading was needed with (a)
letters of large X heights, (b) letters of strong vertical stress,
(c) sans serif type as opposed to serif type, (d) longer lines, and
(e) very small type.
Item Grouping
There is some controversy in the literature (involving normal
individuals) with regard to the grouping of like items and the
presentation of such items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty.
Brenner (1964), Sirotnik and Wellington (1974), and Marso (1970)
suggested that scrambling test items had no effect on the test scores
for normal individuals (8th grade to college). Holliday and Partridge
(1979) and Flaugher, Melton, and Meyers (1968), however, suggested
that hierarchies of items progressing from easy to hard (rather than
a random or descending order) did improve test scores for normal
second graders and high school students. A study of 5,000 normal
high school students by Flaugher, Melton, and Meyers (1968) supported
the idea that reordering test items does not create a new test.
There appeared to be no empirical data available concerning the
effect of item grouping on handicapped students. It seemed, however,
that handicapped children would benefit from the grouping of similar
items. Grouping similar items would tap all items within one particular
skill and create task consistency. This could eliminate the confusion
and/or carelessness that often results from requiring a student to
cognitively jump from one skill to another and back again.

26
Ordering the items from easiest to most difficult would also
appear to help the handicapped student. When items are scrambled,
there is no assurance an EMR or EH child will continue past the
difficult item until he reaches another item he knows. Educationally
handicapped students may become frustrated with a difficult problem
and abandon the rest of the items. By combining these two features,
grouping and ordering, a test could be logical and reinforcing to a
handicapped child. The discouragement a child may feel as he reaches
the limit of his ability on one skill could be counter-balanced by
successful accomplishment on the easier tasks of the next skill.
Physical Layout
Cells per page. Since educationally handicapped children often
demonstrate visual perception problems, educational materials should
optimally be characterized by limited and well organized stimulus. In
order to create a clean and uncluttered page, test problems may be
enclosed within a cell or box. Cells can be created by extending
horizontal lines across the page and by placing one vertical line down
the center of each page. These lines create a well balanced page that
resembles Sample 1 (Figure 1). Cells in other tests are inconsistent
in size due to randomly placed horizontal lines. For example, some
test pages may resemble Sample 2 (Figure 1). Such an imbalanced page
may be distracting and promote confusion for a handicapped child. In
Greenberg's (1980) study with handicapped students, it was recommended
that each page consist of a maximum of six cells; however, the results
of her study did not prove that this number was critical. Research in
this area is obviously limited.

Sample 1
Well Balanced Page
Sample 2
Imbalanced Page
Figure 1

28
Workspace. There is also limited research available on this
topic. Provision of workspace (for math and reading word problems)
was investigated in a study by Majors and Michael (1975). Their
research indicated that children in seventh grade scored higher on
tests that provided workspace. Handicapped learners provided with
workspace may systematically and logically work math and reading word
problems out rather than guessing the answer. The success of the
workspace modification would be closely associated with the teacher's
effectiveness in encouraging and persuading the students to utilize
the workspace.
Administration
Directions and procedures. Tests often require the children to
read and comprehend written directions independently. This assumes
that all children have the ability to do the initial task and can then
proceed to the individual test items. Unfortunately, this may be an
erroneous assumption for many handicapped individuals. How can poor
readers demonstrate their cognitive proficiency on other tasks when
they are unable to decode the information provided in the directions?
Consequently, test directions and general administration procedures
become critical elements of the assessment process. It is essential
that tests are an accurate measurement of a child's cognitive ability
and not of his ability to respond to the test format.
In New Jersey, Basic Skill Tests administrators are permitted to
repeat, reword, and clarify directions and examples for handicapped
children (Greenberg, 1980). This assures that the children understand

29
the task and are not attempting any task that is unclear. In an
attempt to measure skills and not the ability to read, procedures
in New York (Clift, 1979), Virginia, New Jersey, and North Carolina
(Grise”, 1981) allow the math and reading sections of the minimum
competency test to be read to some handicapped students, while Florida
allows only the math and writing portions to be read to the handicapped
students (Florida Statutes 232.246, 1979).
In addition to problems of decoding directions, some handicapped
students also exhibit problems of attention. In a study by Margolis,
Brannigan, and Penner (1978) directions were modified for 16 children
who were labeled as impulsive. Test administrators read the examples
orally, and presented the logic behind choosing the correct answer.
The investigators were successful in teaching the children how to
examine tasks deliberately and logically. Instead of reacting to a
new and uncertain situation in their traditionally habitual and
impulsive manner, the children began to solve tasks systematically
and rationally.
Answer Format
Within test booklet response. Several studies support the pro¬
cedure of having students answer directly in their answer booklet as
opposed to transferring answers to a separate answer sheet. Muller,
Calhoun, and Orling (1972) suggested that the transfer of answers to
separate answer sheets required ability in (a) encoding, (b) short
term memory, and (c) motor coordination. Their study found that
normal third, fourth, and sixth graders answered more items correctly

30
in their booklets (on a ratio of 3:1) than on a separate answer
sheet. Gaffney and Maguire (1971) stated that separate answer
sheets were invalid for use with normal children below fifth grade.
Other results supporting the use of direct response in the test
booklet were stated by Cashen and Ramseyer (1969) for normal
children in grades 1-2, Beck (1974) with normal children in grades
3-4, Majors and Michael (1975) for normal seventh and eighth graders,
Clark (1968) for slow learners, and Greenberg (1980) for handicapped
(EH, LD, EMR) fourth graders.
Placement of answer bubbles. Since the literature appeared to
support the procedure of marking answers within individual test
booklets, studies that pertained to the most effective placement of
the answer bubbles were of interest. Only one report was available
on the physical arrangement of answers. Hartley, Davies, and Burnhill
(1977) compared four answer forms that varied in the placement of the
bubbles to the left or right of the answers. The results indicated
that normal 11-12 year old children demonstrated no significant
preference for any particular placement. No studies were found that
investigated a handicapped population.
Theoretically, when answer bubbles are positioned on the left,
the following perceptual errors may occur within an elementary handi¬
capped (EMR, EH, LD) population: (a) reversals; when the child moves
(right to left) across the number to fill in the bubble, he may
reverse the foil "ol2" to read "21 answer bubble", or (b) visual
mismatching; when a child attempts to shade in one of the four answer

31
bubbles presented, his fist/fingers may be covering the answers.
Moving the bubbles to the right side of the answer may promote a
left to right reading sequence and avoid the accidental mistakes
that occur while filling in the bubbles.
Unverified Modification;
Increased Example/Skill Ratio
There appeared to be no studies available that discussed the
value of examples or their effect on children's test performance.
What is the purpose of examples? Do they facilitate comprehension
of directions and completion of a task?
Hypothetically, it would seem that the difficulty of a test
would increase as the number of examples decreased. Tests with few
examples (2-4 examples for 120 questions or 25 skill changes) may be
measuring a handicapped child's ability to read directions and respond
to skill changes independently, rather than assessing his true cogni¬
tive abilities on those particular skills. It would appear that a
modified test which increased the ratio of examples, relative to the
introduction of each new skill change, may be a positive change.
Implementation of this theory would provide the educationally handi¬
capped child with directions and a sample problem prior to each new
series of tasks.

32
Characteristic Needs of Handicapped Individuals
The diagnosis of a mildly handicapping condition evolves from
the basic premise that the child does not learn as other children
do. He frequently demonstrates certain behaviors that prohibit him
from acquiring knowledge in a traditional manner. These behaviors or
characteristics necessitate modifications in teaching style and/or
presentation of materials. Given the opportunity to learn, however,
the mildly handicapped child is capable of learning. His "needs" to
accomplish this task are simply different than his nonhandicapped
peers.
Summarizing the findings of noted authorities, Morsink (1977)
listed some characteristics of mildly handicapped children that may
impede learning. These include
(a) Attention difficulties. Some children may have problems
concentrating on a specific task, may be unable to use attention
selectively, or may be overselective in its use. This inability may
result in limited task behavior or impulsive guessing.
(b) Perceptual problems (auditory/visual/motor). Children with
these problems tend to have difficulty discriminating differences
between similar items. They may also focus on the irrelevant details
of a task or concept.
(c) Social-emotional problems. Frequently, mildly handicapped
children demonstrate poor attitudes towards school and appear to be
unmotivated to learn. It becomes increasingly difficult for these
children to attempt academic tasks with enthusiasm when they have

33
continually failed in the past. Poor self-concepts and extremely
low frustration levels only complicate an already difficult task.
(d) Memory problems. These children often demonstrate
deficiencies in the ability to store and retrieve auditory and/or
visual stimulus. Although they may be able to learn the task
initially, they become plagued with the inability to recall the
information after a period of time.
(e) Language deficits. Mildly handicapped individuals frequently
demonstrate weak oral and written language skills. Complex linguistic
passages become difficult to understand and the child simply does
not know what is being asked of him . . . let alone do^ it.
(f) Transfer difficulties. These children tend to have problems
structuring, generalizing, and seeing relationships. They appear to
be unable to integrate smaller parts into a whole.
These deficits make it difficult for the handicapped child to
learn or respond by traditional means. Ideally, a learning environment
will control for these variables. It is this control that then allows
optimum learning and assessment to occur.
Current Research in MCT Modifications for
Handicapped Individuals
According to the National Association of State Directors of Special
Education (1979) only seven states have already made or are in the pro¬
cess of making special accommodations in MCT procedures for handi¬
capped children. This is supported by the finding of Smith and
Jenkins (1980) that five of the reporting states (Colorado, Florida,

34
Georgia, Kansas, and Louisiana) have indicated the formal provision
of special testing procedures for categorical groups of handicapped
students.
The state surveys also indicate that current modifications tend
to concentrate on the severely handicapped populations. For example,
the MCT for visually and hearing impaired individuals has been
modified by using braille, large size print, audio supplement, or
sign language (McClung, 1979; McClung & Pullin, 1978; Smith &
Jenkins, 1980). On the other hand, some handicapping conditions
(educable mental retardation) have received no testing modifications
(McClung & Pullin, 1978), and the mildly handicapped students have
received minimal attention.
Education specialists in the state of Florida are apparently well
aware of the problems involved with testing handicapped learners.
McCarthy (1980) stated that Florida has the most elaborate legislative
regulations to date. The statutes provide for
appropriate modification of testing instruments and procedures
for students with identified handicaps or disabilities in
order to ensure that the results of the testing represent
the student's achievement, rather than reflecting the student's
impaired sensory, manual, speaking, or psychological process
skills, except where such skills are the factors the test
purports to measure. (Florida Statutes, Chapter 232,
Section 246)
According to the Florida Administrative Code, the following test
modifications have been proposed for handicapped students:
1. Flexible scheduling
The student may be administered a test during several brief
sessions so long as all testing is completed by the final allowed
test date specified by the Commissioner.

35
2. Flexible setting
The student may be administered a test individually or in small
group setting by a proctor rather than in a classroom or auditorium
setting.
3. Recording of answers
The student may mark answers in a test booklet, type the answer
by machine, or indicate the selected answers to a test proctor. The
proctor may then transcribe the student's responses onto a machine-
scoreable answer sheet.
4. Mechanical aids
The student may use a magnifying device, a pointer, a non-cali-
brated rule or template, or other similar devices to assist in main¬
taining visual attention to the test booklet.
5. Revised format
The test may be presented to the student using one or more of
the following techniques.
(a) visual reading—regular or enlarged print.
(b) tactile reading—braille code or technology to allow optical/
tactile transformation; test items which have no real world applica¬
tions for the blind person will be deleted from the test form provided
by the Department.
(c) the mathematics and writing portions may be presented in sign
language; all directions may also be presented in sign language and
the reading portion of the test must be read by visual or tactile
means.
(d) auditory presentation—an audio-taped version of the mathe¬
matics and writing portions of the test, in a form provided by the

36
Department, may be presented; the test administrator may read a
script version of the test to the student; however, the reading
portion of the test must be read by visual or tactile means.
(Proposed State Board Rule 6A-1.943, State of Florida, 1980)
As progressive as the Florida modifications may be in compari¬
son with those of other states, they may be somewhat misleading. The
current emphasis appears to be on the more general "procedural" mod¬
ifications (i.e., where and when of testing) than on the actual con¬
struction of the test. Although these modifications may be beneficial,
it would appear that mildly handicapped populations may require
additional test modifications involving test design and physical
formatting (i.e., issues dealing with print, color, spacing, consistency,
or realism).
There is little research data available in the area of specific
test modifications on test performance of handicapped learners.
Although many educators espouse the legal and educational need for
such modifications (Denninger, 1979; Kaluzny, 1979; McCarthy, 1980;
McClung & Pull in, 1978; Smith & Jenkins, 1980) there have been only
three known studies using modified formats for state assessment tests.
State Research Studies
New Jersey. A project in New Jersey under the direction of Lydia
Greenberg, Coordinator of State Testing Program, New Jersey State
Department of Education (1980), compared group performances of special
children on modified state assessment tests. The New Jersey Minimum
Basic Skills Test was field tested with fourth, seventh, tenth, and

37
twelfth grade handicapped students, assessing reading and math
skills. The areas of handicapping conditions included communica¬
tion impaired, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, ortho-
pedically handicapped, chronically ill, perceptually impaired,
neurologically impaired, multiply handicapped, and socially mal¬
adjusted. In contrast with their performance on the standard test,
the students in grades 7, 10, and 12 had higher scores on the
revised reading test. There was no significant difference between
student performance on the revised and standard math subtests at any
grade level. Even with the noted reading score improvement, however,
the handicapped population still scored below the normal group of
students.
Based on the analysis of the field test, the following modifica¬
tions appeared to have the greatest impact in the study according to
Greenberg (1980):
1. The print was enlarged.
2. Time limits were extended (approximately twice the normal
amount of time allotted). The teacher was asked not to mention any
time limit.
3. Practice tests were developed for the handicapped students
at the four grade levels. The purpose of this was to acquaint the
students with test taking techniques. It was administered one to two
weeks before the actual testing.
4. Students could be tested alone or in small groups.
At the conclusion of the field testing, administrators made the
following recommendations:

38
a. Transferring answers from the test booklet to the answer
sheet caused confusion and anxiety, and the students lost their
places. Suggestions were made to have the students mark the answers
in the test booklets or respond orally.
b. The wording of directions should be simplified. Administra¬
tors should be able to paraphrase instructions. Directions should be
repeated or examples re-explained if the student does not understand.
c. Directions should be read aloud to ensure each student
understands the task.
d. Markers would help alleviate the problem of students losing
their places.
It was also recommended that several variables be considered when
determining a student's eligibility for inclusion in the minimum
competency testing program. Handicapped students who had previous
experience in taking standardized tests appeared to perform better
than those who had not. Elementary and secondary special education
students who had been staffed into resource rooms performed better
than those special education students who had been staffed into self-
contained classrooms. It was also recommended that any student
functioning at a level two or more years below the content level of
the test should be excluded from the test.
Florida. Another study was conducted in the state of Florida by
JoEllen Perez (1980). Based on the New Jersey study, a review of the
literature, and opinions of teachers and consultants throughout the
state of Florida, Perez concluded there were five major areas that

39
required modification. They consisted of (a) clear presentation
of directions and addition of supplemental directions and sample
items, (b) various alternatives for indicating responses (i.e.,
marking answers in the test booklet or giving answers orally);
(c) access to an audio presentation of some items; (d) clear print
format and print size; and (e) adequate spacing that would facilitate
processing of the task.
On the basis of this information, Perez (1980) placed the major
emphasis of Florida's modified test on the stimulus/response mode.
Using 48 learning disabled (LD) eleventh graders from the Dade County
area, Perez administered a modified assessment test with the follow¬
ing changes:
1. One group of students took the test augmented with audio
support.
2. Another group of students took a large print (18 pt.)
version of the test.
3. A third group took the standard sized print test.
4. All students had unlimited time for responding to test
iterns.
5. Templates or markers (5" x 8" white) were available for
all students to use.
6. All students had the option of responding to a test item by
circling or underlining (a) the entire item or (b) the corresponding
letter in the test booklet.
Results of the study indicated that the large print presentation
was superior to the regular print format in five of eight skills

40
tested. Large print also showed improved scores when compared to
audio support in four of eight skills. There was no skill where
regular print or audio support was preferred to large print. To
accommodate the large print, however, the size of the booklets was
also enlarged. Grise" (1980) noted that the older students expressed
their dislike, as the booklet size was awkward to handle and it tended
to draw attention to the disability.
Some students reported confusion with the audio support presenta¬
tion of the test. They found it difficult to cope with the combined
auditory and visual stimuli'. The markers provided in the study were
not used by any of the secondary students, although some were seen
using their pencils to mark their place. Finally, it did not appear
to be possible to use the psychological and IEP data of individual
LD students to predict maximum performance on tests with specific
modifications.
University of Florida Research
The most current study was conducted by Beattie and Algozzine
(1981) at the University of Florida. An analysis of the State
Student Assessment Test-Part I (SSAT-I) (grade 3 and 5) and a review
of the literature indicated that several general physical format
modifications could be implemented as potential aids to mildly handi¬
capped students. Specifically, the following changes were made in
the standard format to create a modified test.
1. The order of selected items was changed to reflect a hier-
archial progression of skills whenever possible.

41
2. All multiple choice answer options were placed in a vertical
format with scoring "bubbles" placed to the right of each choice.
The shape of individual answer bubbles was a horizontal oval.
3. Third grade tests were available in either standard print
(12 pt = 2.0 mm) or enlarged print (18 pt = 3.3 mm). Fifth grade
tests were printed in enlarged 16 pt (2.9 mm) type and standard size
print.
4. Sentences for reading comprehension items were arranged in an
unjustified format when possible; that is, complete sentences were left
intact creating uneven right hand margins. In contrast, the tradi¬
tional tests maintained the justified formatting which is character¬
ized by equal left and right hand margins.
5. Reading comprehension passages were placed in shaded boxes
immediately above the test items related to them.
6. Examples were provided for each skill grouping within the
individual test sections. All examples were set apart from the test
items by boxes.
7. Specific words that required additional emphasis were printed
in boldface type as opposed to uppercase (capital letters), italics,
or underlining.
8. Pictorial representations of coins were displayed with the
head or face side up. This was in contrast to the traditional tail
side up format.
9. Test items that required a logical sequencing of events were
placed in a horizontal row of boxes as opposed to positions within
the four quadrants of a square.

42
10. Arrows were placed in the lower right-hand corner of
pages to indicate continuing sections of the test. Stop signs were
positioned similarly, denoting an end to each skill section.
A total of 679 third and fifth grade learning disabled (LD)
students from seven counties in Florida participated in the study.
Results indicated that the third and fifth grade LD students' per¬
formance on the modified SSAT-I was comparable to or better than
that on the regular SSAT-I for approximately 75 percent of the test
items evaluated. Detailed analysis of specific modifications revealed
that (a) both third and fifth grade LD students performed consistently
higher on modified test items presenting coins face up; (b) third
grade LD students performed better on the modified sequencing section
(the skill was not presented in the fifth grade test); and (c) there
was no significant difference between the LD students' performance on
tests printed in standard type and their performance on tests printed
in enlarged print.
Summary
The review of the literature revealed very few studies that
applied to physical test modifications designed for mildly handicapped
elementary aged children. Due to current legal and educational issues
involved in non-discriminatory testing, there is a definite need for
additional research.
Print authorities appear to support the use of boldface lowercase
print as an effective means for emphasizing important words or concepts.

43
They also agree that words written in capital letters or italics slow
down the rate of reading. In spite of this agreement, however,
there were no studies available that establish the effectiveness of
these printing procedures with various handicapped populations.
There appear to be conflicting data regarding the effectiveness
of enlarged print with handicapped populations. Additional research
with various handicapped individuals may be warranted in order to
measure the effect of enlarged print on the type of handicap and the
different ages of the subjects.
Typographers recommend the use of unjustified lines for greater
legibility and ease of reading. The presence of only one empirical
study to date with ahndicapped children also suggests the need for
continued research in the area.
There appears to be much controversy in the literature regarding
the benefits of grouping similar items in a hierarchy from easy to hard
for normal children. There are no known studies measuring the abilities
of handicapped children with scattered items or groups of items in
no order of difficulty.
The literature contains sufficient evidence to warrant the con¬
clusion that elementary handicapped children do perform better when
required to respond directly in their answer booklets as opposed to
transferring answers to a separate answer sheet. On the other hand,
research appears limited in regard to the effects of physical format¬
ting of answer bubbles. The literature does not address the issue
of increased accuracy of handicapped children's response when answer
bubbles are placed before, after, above, or below the answer foil.

44
Research is also limited in regard to physical formatting of
individual test items. Although one study recommended the maximum
of six cells per page be used, the results of the study did not prove
that this number was critical. There appear to be no data that
measure the confusion handicapped children may experience from
random placement of test items.
Finally, no relevant data could be found on the recommended
number of examples per skill change for either normal or handicapped
populations. For the purpose of this study, the inclusion of this
modification was based on logic and the current knowledge available
regarding the learning characteristics of handicapped and normal
children.
Based on this review, the following physical test format modifica¬
tions appear to be warranted for continued research. They include the
effectiveness of boldface type for emphasis, unjustified formatting of
sentences, grouping of similar tasks in a progressive hierarchy, inclu¬
sion of examples to facilitate task transition, and the placement of
answer bubbles in relation to foil.
The effect of these modifications on the performance of students
with such mildly handicapping conditions as LD, EMR, and EH is of
primary interest. The inclusion of a normal group of individuals
may reveal that specific modifications are simply "good" test construc¬
tion formatting principles, applicable and beneficial to the majority
of average individuals.

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Chapter III includes a description of the methods and procedures
used in this study. There are two major sections in this chapter;
the first is a description of subjects, and the second is a descrip¬
tion of the experimental procedures including materials, setting,
variables, hypotheses, and data analysis.
Method
The research was conducted in Alachua County and in the city of
Orlando, which is comprised of three counties (Orange, Seminole, and
Osceola). Alachua County is located in north central Florida,
encompasses an area of approximately 965 square miles, and has a
population of 133,817. Metropolitan Orlando is located in cental
Florida, is approximately 2600 square miles, and has a population of
723,903.
Four categories of students from the third grade participated
in the study. These included normal students and those students with
such mildly handicapping conditions as learning disabilities (LD),
emotional handicaps (EH), and educable mental retardation (EMR).
Criteria used in the determination of these mildly handicapping
45

46
conditions are listed in Appendix A.
Each group of subjects (LD, EH, EMR, normal) contained 20
students, for a total population of 80 subjects. Permission to
participate in the study was obtained from each student's parent/
guardian. Parent permission slips are in Appendix B.
Selection of students was done randomly. In Alachua County,
there was a limited number (9) of diagnosed third grade EMR students.
As a result, principals of those schools were contacted for permission
to test. In addition to selecting those particular EMR students, the
third grade LD and EH children and a proportionate number of normal
third grade children in those schools were also selected for partici¬
pation in the study. Orange County Special Education Coordinators
randomly selected 10 schools and obtained principal permission for
the LD, EH, EMR children in those schools to participate in the study.
In each county the children were randomly matched within each
category according to reading levels obtained from a Ginn reading
series test or Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. Students reading on
the same level were then randomly assigned to take either a modified
or standard version of a test. The mean reading level for the entire
population was 2.4 (fourth month of second grade). The average
reading levels by category were (a) normal subjects-grade 3.2, (b)
learning disabled — grade 2.1, (c) emotionally handicapped — grade 2.5,
and (d) educable mentally retarded — grade 1.8. Analysis of these
differences indicated that LD and EMR students performed similarly,
as did EH and LD students. Normal students consistently performed
higher than all other groups.

47
2
The subjects were evenly distributed (x = 0.21, 0.005, p >
.05) across test types with regard to sex and race; 49 males (23
standard, 26 modified), 31 females (17 standard, 14 modified), 40
black (19 standard, 21 modified), and 40 white (21 standard, 19
modified). Consistent with past findings in special education
literature, however, sex and race were not evenly distributed across,
categories. Specific examples of relationships between race/sex and
special education placement are three times as many white children
in LD as black and almost six times as many boys in EH as girls. A
breakdown of the four categories by race and sex is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Category Membership by Race and Sex
Category
Race
Black White
Sex
Male
Female
Normal
14(17.5%)
6( 7.5%)
8(10.0%)
12(15.0%)
LD
5( 6.3%)
15(18.8%)
12(15.0%)
8(10.0%)
EH
11(13.8%)
9(11.3%)
17(21.3%)
3( 3.7%)
EMR
10(12.5%)
10(12.5%)
12(15.0%)
8(10.0%)
x2 = 8.40
2
X
= 8.58
£ < •
.05
£ •
í .05

48
Experimental Procedures
Each of the 80 randomly selected subjects was asked to complete
a 100 item test. All testing occurred in a designated classroom in
the school; students took the test in small groups of 2-7. The
effects of various test modifications on the performance of four
groups of students were evaluated using appropriate inferential
statistics.
Materials
The students were randomly assigned to take one of two tests,
either a standard or modified version. Each test contained 100 items
with multiple choice answers; answers were marked within the test
booklet. The test items were identical in content, differing only in
physical format. Internal consistency estimates for standard and
modified total tests ranged from .85 to .96. Reliability measures
for the five modification subtests generally ranged from .61 to .94,
with three subtests scores falling below .60. Refer to Table 2 for
the reliability of the total test and each subtest by category.
The standard test consisted of five groups of 20 items. These
items were characterized by exclusion of examples in transition from
skill to skill (#1-20), an inconsistent method of denoting emphasis
(#21-40), placement of answer bubbles to the left of the foils (#41-
60), a presentation of skills in a mixed hierarchy of difficulty
(#61-80), and justified line lengths (#81-100). A sample test in
standard format is included in Appendix C.

49
Table 2
Internal Consistency Estimates for
Standard and Modified Tests
Subtests
Test
Version
Category
Total
Example
Boldface
Answer
Bubbles
Hierarchy
Line
Length
Standard
Normal
.92
.74
.62
.62
.75
.93
LD
.94
.65
.87
.91
.71
.79
EH
.96
.78
.91
.82
.94
.83
EMR
.88
.63
.71
.64
.72
.84
Modified
Normal
.85
.55
.69
.19
.66
.80
LD
.90
.61
.83
.85
.76
.30
EH
.93
.68
.90
.58
.67
.86
EMR
.91
.79
.62
.78
.90
.61
The
modified test also
consisted of
five groups of 20
i terns.
These items, however,
were
characterized by the
inclusion i
of examples
and teacher explanation at the beginning
of each
new skill
section (#1-
20), the
use of boldface type to denote emphasis
(#21-40),
placement
of answer bubbles to the right of the answer foils (#41-60), grouping
of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty (#61-80), and
unjustified line length (#81-100). A sample modified test is in¬
cluded in Appendix D

50
Setting
The subjects were removed from their regular classrooms and
taken to one room where the standard and modified tests were
administered to a group of approximately 2-7 students. Before
beginning the test the following statement was read to the subjects.
Today you are going to take a special test. You
probably have seen questions like these in your class¬
room work. I want you to take your time and answer
as many questions as you can. Raise your hand if
you have any questions. Are there any questions
now? Good luck!
The tests were administered on two consecutive days. The
students were given items #1-60 of their respective test during the
first session which lasted approximately 60-75 minutes. Items #61-
100 were administered on the next day with that session lasting
approximately 45-60 minutes. Upon completion of the test, the
subjects returned to their regular classroom setting.
Variables
The effects of the experimental procedure on students' test
performance scores was measured. Four groups of students were
evaluated using two different test formats; performance scores on
the total test and comparable subtests were analyzed.
The independent variables in this study were type of student
and test type. Students were characterized as normal, learning dis¬
abled, emotionally handicapped, or educable mentally retarded. Tests

51
comprised of standard and modified formats were used; the modifica¬
tions included (a) the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of
progressive difficulty, (b) the arrangement of line lengths in an
unjustified manner, (c) the introduction of examples and directions
for each new skill change, (d) the placement of answer bubbles to
the right of each foil, and (e) the use of boldface type for emphasis.
The dependent variable in this study was the raw score indicating
the student's performance on the total test or group of selected test
items. Equal numbers of test items were included for each test
modification.
Hypotheses
A series of related hypotheses were addressed. These included:
1. There is no difference in total test performance of various
groups of students as a function of the nature of the test (i.e.,
modified vs. standard form).
2. There is no difference in the performance of various groups
of students on selected items as a function of an increased ratio
of examples to skill changes.
3. There is no difference in the performance of various groups
of students on selected test items as a function of boldface type.
4. There is no difference in the performance of various groups
of students on selected test items as a function of answer bubble
placement.
5. There is no difference in the performance of various groups
of students on selected test items as a function of item grouping.

52
6. There is no difference in the performance of various groups
of students on selected test items as a function of unjustified
line lengths.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was conducted in the following manner. There
was a comparison of test scores on the standard and modified test
form for each of the handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) and normal groups.
Two factor analyses of variance (ANOVA) were completed for the total
test performance score and performance on each set of similar items.
Main effects and interactions were analyzed and subsequent follow-up
analyses were completed as necessary; the 5 percent level of confi¬
dence was used for all tests. Tables were prepared for the total
test scores and each set of test modification items. Additionally,
a post hoc comparison of student performance on certain skill cluster
of items was completed; differences between modified and standard
test performance were evaluated using criteria developed by the
Florida State Department of Education.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to compare total test performance
scores of two tests between four groups of students. Performances of
each group of students on selected test item modifications were also
investigated as were differences in skill mastery levels.
Eighty third grade students from Alachua County and metropolitan
Orlando, Florida, participated in the study. Twenty students were

53
randomly selected for each of the four categories; half taking the
modified test items and half taking the standard version of the test.
The 100 item tests were administered to small groups of students, two
to seven students per group. The test was given on two consecutive
days; approximately 60 minutes and 45 minutes sessions respectively
each day. A standard statement was read to all students prior to
beginning the test.
Two factor analyses of variance were completed for the total
test performance score and performance on each set of similar items.
Main effects and interactions were analyzed and susequent follow-up
analyses were completed as necessary using a 5 percent level of
confidence.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This study was conducted to investigate the possible effects
of five physical test format modifications on the performance of
mildly handicapped and normal third grade students. The modifica¬
tions included an increased ratio of examples per skill change, the
use of boldface type for emphasis, the placement of answer bubbles,
the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive diffi¬
culty, and unjustified line lengths.
Eighty students from Alachua County and metropolitan Orlando
schools participated in the study. There were 20 students in each
of four categories (LD, EH, EMR, normal). The students within each
category were randomly matched according to reading ability and
randomly assigned to either standard or modified test forms.
Data were analyzed using two factor analyses of variance (ANOVA)
for the total test performance score and the performance on each set
of similar items (subtests 1-5). Significant main effects for
category were further evaluated using follow-up analyses according
to Tukey's Honestly Significant Differences (cited in Ferguson, 1971)
procedure; main effects for differences in test forms were interpreted
as £ ratios due to the presence of only two levels of that independent
variable. Level of significance of all tests was set at a = .05.
54

55
Means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance summary
table for total test performance are presented in Table 3. Signifi¬
cant main effects are indicated for both category and test form.
Similar information relative to student performance on the five
modification subtests (i.e., examples, boldface type, answer bubble
placement, progressive hierarchy, and unjustified line length), is
presented in Tables 4 to 8.
Total performance on the modified test (x = 75.20) was approxi¬
mately six points higher than on the standard test form [x = 68.95).
As revealed in the follow-up analyses, performance of EH and LD
students was similar as were normal and EH students. The scores of
the mentally retarded students and LD students, however, were signifi¬
cantly lower than normal students.
With regards to subtest scores, there were no differences in
test form for four out of five modification subtests; the one excep¬
tion was the example subtest. On the example subtest, students
achieved higher scores on the modified version (x = 15.67) than on
the standard version ("x = 14.02). As indicated in follow-up analyses,
performance of EH and LD students was consistently similar on all
subtests; this was also true of normal and EH students. Learning
disabled and normal students performed similarly on only 33 percent
of the tests; EMR children always performed lower than other categories
of students. Results of all follow-up analyses are presented in
Table 9; similar means are denoted by an underline.

56
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Performance
on Standard/Modified Test
Category
Total
Test Form
Score
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard
89.3
10.6
Normal
Modified
92.9
6.2
Standard
71.5
16.8
LD
Modified
78.3
12.4
Standard
76.3
20.1
EH
Modified
83.3
12.9
Standard
38.7
13.0
EMR
Modified
46.3
15.5
Analysis of Variance Summary
Source
Sums of
Squares(SS)
Mean
Square(MS)
Degrees of
Freedom(df)
F
Category
26085.75
8695.25
3
44.32*
Test Form
781.25
781.25
1
3.98*
Category X
Test Form
48.55
16.18
3
.08
Error
14125.89
196.19
72
*
p < .05

57
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Performance
on Subtest for Example Modification
Category
Test Form
Examples
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard
18.1
2.4
Normal
Modified
18.8
1.5
Standard
15.5
2.9
LD
Modified
16.0
2.7
Standard
15.4
3.7
EH
Modified
16.9
2.6
Standard
7.1
3.2
EMR
Modified
11.0
4.4
Analysis of Variance Summary
Source
Sums of
Squares(SS)
Mean
Square(MS)
Degrees of
Freedom(df)
F
Category
982.00
327.33
3
35.22*
Test Form
54.45
54.45
1
5.86*
Category X
Test Form
36.55
12.18
3
1.31
Error
669.19
9.29
72
*
p < .05

58
Table 5
Means
and Standard Deviations for Students'
Performance
on Subtest for
Boldface Type Modification
Boldface
Category
Test Form
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard
17.7
2.2
Normal
Modified
18.5
2.0
Standard
13.6
5.0
LD
Modified
15.3
4.1
Standard
14.9
5.4
EH
Modified
16.5
4.7
Standard
7.1
3.8
EMR
Modified
8.3
3.5
Analysis
of Variance
Summary
Source
Sums of
Squares(SS)
Mean
Square(MS)
Degrees of
Freedom(df)
F
Category
1191.84
397.28
3
24.79*
Test Form
35.11
35.11
1
2.19
Category X
Test Form
2.54
.85
3
.053
Error
1153.49
16.02
72
★
p < .05

59
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Performance
on Subtest for Answer Bubble Modification
Category
Answer
Test Form
Bubbles
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard
18.5
1.8
Normal
Modified
18.8
1.1
Standard
13.7
5.5
LD
Modified
14.8
4.4
Standard
15.5
4.0
EH
Modified
17.4
2.1
Standard
8.3
3.4
EMR
Modified
8.3
4.1
Analysis of Variance Summary
Source
Sums of
Square(SS)
Mean
Square(MS)
Degrees of
Freedom(df)
F
Category
1189.94
396.64
3
30.68*
Test Form
13.61
13.61
1
1.05
Category X
Test Form
10.94
3.65
3
.28
Error
930.89
12.93
72
*
p < .05

60
Table 7
Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Performance
on Subtest for Hierarchial Modification
Hierarchy
Category
Test Form
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard
18.5
2.2
Normal
Modified
19.2
1.3
Standard
16.3
2.8
LD
Modified
17.0
2.5
Standard
16.9
4.7
EH
Modified
17.6
2.1
Standard
9.6
3.8
EMR
Modified
11.1
6.0
Analysis
of Variance Summary
Sums of
Mean
Degrees of
Source
Square(SS)
Square(MS)
Freedom(df)
F
Category
836.55
278.85
3
22.74*
Test Form
16.20
16.20
1
1.32
Category X
2.40
.80
3
.06
Test Form
Error
882.79
12.26
72
★
p < .05

61
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Performance
on Subtest for Line Length Modification
Line Length
Category
Test Form
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard
16.5
4.9
Normal
Modified
17.6
2.9
Standard
12.4
4.1
LD
Modified
15.0
2.2
Standard
13.7
4.5
EH
Modified
14.9
4.6
Standard
7.8
5.0
EMR
Modified
7.6
3.2
Analysi
is of Variance Summary
Source
Sums of
Squares(SS)
Mean
Square(MS)
Degrees of
Freedom(df)
F
Category
930.64
310.21
3
18.89*
Test Form
27.61
27.61
1
1.68
Category X
Test Form
19.64
6.55
3
.39
Error
1182.29
16.42
72
*
p < . 05

62
Table 9
Results of Follow-Up Analyses Using Tukey's
Honestly Significant Differences
Category
Normal
x score
EH
x score
LD
x score
EMR
x score
Total Test
91.10
79.80
74.90
42.50
Subtests
Example
18.45
16.15
15.75
9.05
Boldface
18.10
15.70
14.45
7.70
Answer Bubble
18.65
16.45
14.25
8.30
Hierarchy 18.85 17.25 16.65 10.35
14.30 13.70
Line Length
17.05
7.70

63
Current practice in reporting the results of minimum competency
testing in Florida is to present scores that are indicative of
mastery of basic skills. The state has established minimum perfor¬
mance standards for each subskill; the number of items correct
relative to the total number of subski 11 items attempted is the basis
for decision making relative to "mastery." The mastery criteria
currently being used in Florida are presented in Table 10. Within
the five different subtests presented in this study, different sub-
skills were included. A post hoc analysis of the student's test per¬
formance on specific subski 11s was completed. Individual scores
were calculated for percentage of subskill items correct; these were
compared to current state mastery criteria. Results of this analysis
are presented in Table 11. On 32 percent of the subskill sections,
the difference between performance on the standard and modified tests
was the difference between achieving mastery criteria and failing.
Overall, the performance scores on the modified test were one to 16
percentage points higher than on the standard test for 80 percent
of the individual subski 11 sections.
Further analysis of the data was completed regarding the
number of students achieving mastery by subtest by category. It
appeared there were no substantial differences in mastery level
for normal students on either standard or modified test versions.
Certain test modifications did appear, however, to facilitate
mastery levels for various mildly handicapping conditions. For
example, numbers of LD, EH, and EMR students achieving mastery

64
Table 10
Criteria Used to Determine and Report Mastery of Skills
When the number
measure a skill
of questions to
is as follows:
The minimum
required to
shall be as
number of questions
be answered correctly
follows:
2
1
of
2
3
2
of
3
4
3
of
4
5
4
of
5
6
5
of
6
7
5
of
7
8
6
of
8
9
7
of
9
10
7
of
10
11
8
of
11
12
9
of
12
13
10
of
13
14
10
of
14
15
11
of
15
16
12
of
16
Source: Florida Department of Education. Statistical Report: 1980-
81. State and district report of results. Tallahassee, FL:
Division of Public Schools, Series 81-05, February 1981.

65
Table 11
Comparison of Mean Test Scores for Standard and
Modified Subtests with Mastery Criteria
Mastery ,
Criteria1
Standard Test
x percentage
score
Modified Test
x percentage
score
Example
Dol1ar
66%
62.5
* 78.3
Fractions
66%
75.8
74.2
Measurement
66%
85.0
86.7
Sequencing (lst-last)
75%
76.2
83.7
ABC order
75%
55.6
67.5
Math Word Problems
66%
63.3
* 81.7
Boldface
Not
75%
72.5
* 75.0
End
75%
68.7
69.4
Pronoun
in
60.6
* 75.6
Opposites
75%
65.6
* 75.0
Following directions
75%
65.6
71.2
Answer Bubble
2-digit addition
75%
85.0
90.0
Math Word Problems
75%
71.2
* 85.0
Reading Comprehension
75%
56.9
61.2
Reading Comprehension
75%
70.0
68.7
Spelling
75%
66.9
65.6
^Based on data in Florida Department of Education. Statistical report
1980-81. State and district report results. Tallahassee, FL:
Division of Public Schools
, Series 81
-05, February
1981.

66
Table 11-Continued
Mastery
Criteria
Standard Test
x percentage
score
Modified Test
x percentage
score
Line Lenqth
Reading Comp.-end
75%
68.1
66.2
Reading Comp.
75%
67.5
74.4
$ Word Problems
75%
51.9
58.7
# Word Problems
75%
74.4
* 81.2
Reading Comp.-not
75%
53.1
63.7
Hierarchy
+ vertical
80%
87.5
92.0
+ horizontal
80%
77.0
* 86.0
- vertical
80%
70.5
70.5
- horizontal
80%
71.5
76.0
* Indicates those subtests in which mastery criteria was
achieved on the modified version but not on the standard
version.

67
criteria were substantially higher when using the modification of
unjustified line lengths. Likewise, differences in favor of the
boldface type and example modifications were noted for LD, EH students
and EMR students respectively. Data supporting these conclusions are
contained in Table 12.
In summary, total test performance differences were indicated
for both category and test form. As a result of follow-up analyses,
no significant differences between EH and LD students' scores nor
between those of normal and EH students were indicated. Learning
disabled and normal students' performance was significantly
different and EMR students' scores were consistently lower than
those for any other category of students. A comparison of test
forms indicated total performance on the modified test was approxi¬
mately an average of six points higher than on the standard test form.
Analysis of subtest scores revealed consistent main effects
for all categories. The performance of EH and LD students was
similar on all subtests; as was that of normal and EH students.
Learning disabled and normal students performed similarly on 33
percent of the subtests and EMR children consistently performed
lower than other categories of students. The only significant
difference in test form was on the example subtest, with higher
scores being achieved on the modified form than on the standard
version of the test.
Percentage of subskill items within each subtest was compared
to Florida's current mastery criteria. Mean performance scores on
the modified test were 1-16 percentage points higher than those on

68
Table 12
Frequency Count of Students Achieving Mastery
by Subtest by Category
Subtest
Subskill
S
N
M
S
LD
M
S
EH
M
EMR
S M
Examples
Dollar
8
10
8
9
9
8
1
5
Fractions
10
10
9
7
9
7
3
6
Measurement
10
10
10
9
10
10
8
5
Sequencing
8
10
8
10
7
9
1
5
ABC Order
10
9
5
7
6
8
1
2
Math Word Problems
10
9
7
9
8
10
1
5
Total
56
58
47
51
49
52
15
28
Boldface
Not
9
9
7
8
8
7
1
3
End
10
8
7
8
7
9
3
2
Pronouns
9
10
5
6
6
7
2
3
Opposites
9
10
5
9
7
8
3
2
Following Directions
8
9
8
7
7
9
1
0
Total
45
46
32
38
35
40
10
10
Answer
2-digit Addition
10
10
9
10
8
10
6
7
Bubble
Math Word Problems
10
10
7
7
9
10
2
4
Reading Comprehension
9
7
2
5
6
6
2
0
Reading Comprehension
9
10
7
6
7
8
2
1
Spelling
9
10
6
6
8
7
2
1
Total
47
47
31
34
38
41
14
13
Line
Reading Comprehension
8
9
7
7
5
9
3
6
Length
Reading Comprehension
9
10
6
7
8
10
1
5
$ Word Problems
8
6
2
7
6
5
1
3
# Word Problems
9
9
7
8
8
9
4
4
Reading Comp. - Not
8
9
3
7
3
7
1
3
Total
42
43
25
36
30
40
10
21
Hierarchy
+ Vertical
8
10
10
10
9
10
4
0
+ Horizontal
9
10
9
9
9
9
0
2
- Vertical
9
7
6
3
7
4
0
3
- Horizontal
9
10
7
7
8
7
1
1
Total
35
37
32
29
33
30
5
6

69
the standard test for 80 percent of the individual subskill
sections. An analysis of these differences indicated a number of
instances (i.e., 32 percent) when mastery was achieved on the modified
test but not the standard. Further analysis also indicated that
specific test modifications produced substantial differences in
numbers of students attaining mastery criteria by category. These
differences were seen for LD, EH, and EMR students using unjustified
line lengths, LD and EH students using boldface type, and EMR
students using examples.

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Tests can be useful tools. If adequately designed and used
properly, they can direct teachers to the specific strengths and
weaknesses of any child. Tests can be used to determine degrees
of deficits, facilitate appropriate placement, and be of assistance
in the development of instructional strategies. The information
obtained from tests is also useful in evaluating skills, planning
lessons and curriculum, and determining amounts of progress that
have been made. In essence, tests can be used to constructively
analyze problems and serve as a basis for remediation.
Unfortunately, tests are not always designed and implemented
sensibly or in the best interest of the child. Often test items
do not measure what they purport to measure and a child's true
ability is not adequately assessed. Although a child may cognitively
know a skill, the manner in which the skill is tested may frequently
affect his ability to demonstrate proficiency. The same skill pre¬
sented in a different manner/mode may elicit a totally different
response. Possibly, the greatest inequities of testing may be
occurring with the handicapped population at the elementary level.
Salvia and Ysseldyke (1978) denote the fact that test items
often measure the student's ability to "receive a stimulus and then
70

71
express a response" (p. 25). As a result, handicapped students
may possibly be unable to demonstrate their true level of content
knowledge; instead, their responses may be a measure of their
ability to decode the directions, read all the words in the passage,
and transfer answers. Gearheart and Willenberg (1974) emphasize
the need for testing examiners to be aware of any confounding factors
inherent to some handicapping conditions. They stress the need to
"remember the primary handicap and make certain you are testing what
you intend to test, not the reflection or outcome of the disability"
(p. 85). Individuals involved in the design and administration of
tests must be extremely careful to recognize the possible interaction
between the student's ability, his disability, and the behavior
sampled by the test items.
Consideration of appropriate test modification appears warranted.
Salvia and Ysseldyke (1978) state that "common sense tells us that
if a student cannot read the directions or write the responses, a
test requiring these abilities is inappropriate" (p. 26). In support
of this issue, Marsh, Gearheart, and Gearheart (1978) contend that
students with poor reading and writing skills should not have to take
tests under traditional circumstances. Tests need not be eliminated.
As such, standard test forms may simply need to be modified according
to individual differences. Optimally, tests could be designed for
the handicapped population to adequately assess their skills and
understanding of particular concepts. Variations in test design
could compensate for visual-motor problems, auditory memory

72
deficiencies, or poor decoding skills. When a test compensates for
these weaknesses, there is a greater assurance that the child's true
ability has been accurately measured. Diagnosticians and educators
can then proceed to take full advantage of the benefits that testing
has to offer.
There has been little research associated with physical test
modifications. Further, investigations appear to be warranted for
those modifications that are specifically designed for the mild
educationally handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) student (Salvia & Ysseldyke,
1978). Any information gathered, relative to the effects of test
modifications, can serve as a basis for all future planning relative
to designing and implementing tests of minimum abilities for handi¬
capped students.
Discussion of Findings
Eighty third grade students (normal, LD, EH, and EMR) from Alachua
and Orange Counties were administered one of two versions of a minimum
competency test. One group of 40 students, comprised of 10 students
from each category, received the standard test. The other group of
40 students was administered a modified version of the standard test.
Although the content of the test item remained constant, the physical
formatting was altered by examples, boldface print, answer bubble
placement, hierarchial arrangement, and line length.
Test Form Analyses
Results of a statistical analysis using ANOVA indicated that
although students consistently performed better on the modified test,

73
significant main effects for test form existed only for total test
scores and those for the example subtest. On the average, students
taking the modified test performed approximately six points higher
on the 100 item test than those students taking the standard version.
On the example subtest, students achieved higher scores (approximately
two points or a gain of 10 percent) on the modified version than
on the standard test. These findings would suggest that students'
performance varies with the type of test administered, in favor of
the modified version.
Category Analyses
Significant main effects for category of student were further
evaluated using Tukey's Honestly Significant Differences procedure.
Consistent for all tests (total and subtests) was similar perform¬
ance between EH and LD students and between normal and EH students.
On two subtests (those modified by hierarchial arrangement of items
and unjustified line lengths) LD and normal students performed sim¬
ilarly. In all other instances, EMR and LD students performed
significantly lower than other categories of students. These results
support differences in student performance consistent with assigned
category.
Post Hoc Analyses
Additional analyses were completed to address the specific
effects of the test modifications relative to individual groups of

74
students. Although the overall analysis indicated that differences
between these test scores were not significant at the a = .05 level,
the issue of mastery of individual subskills was of interest.
The percentage of items correct for each subski 11 on both test
versions was calculated. These scores were then compared with the
current state mastery criteria. This comparison revealed that the
performance scores on the modified test were higher than those on
the standard test for 80 percent (20/25) of the subskills tested.
The increase between mean scores ranged from 1 to 16 percentage points.
These increases in performance scores for the modified test subse¬
quently became the difference between mastery and failure for 32
percent (8/25) of the subskill sections. Students taking the modi¬
fied test achieved mastery level criteria for one-third of the sub-
skills that were not mastered on the standard version. This analysis
also revealed that specific modifications appeared to facilitate
acquisition of mastery by certain categories of handicapped students.
Frequency of mastery was substantially higher for LD, EH, EMR stu¬
dents on the unjustified line length subtest, LD and EH students on
the boldface type subtest, and EMR students on the example subtest.
Another issue of interest was the presence of any trend in
performance scores between categories on total test. Some pro¬
fessionals may argue that physical format modifications may
simply raise the test scores across all categories. Results of the
post hoc analysis indicated that this was apparently not true in
this study. While the differences between mean performance scores

75
for normal students was 3.6 (in favor of the modified test) the
differences between standard and modified test scores for LD, EH, and
EMR students were 6.8-7.6. These differences on the modified test
were consistently three to four points higher for mildly handicapped
students than they were for normal students.
Although no interaction between test form and category resulted
from analysis of the inferential statistics, data were then analyzed
to ascertain if specific categories obtained higher performance
scores on any particular subtests for either test version. Emotion¬
ally handicapped students consistently scored an average of two
points (10 percent) higher on the modified subtests for examples,
boldface type, and answer bubble placement. Learning disabled
students achieved an average of two points higher on the boldface
type subtest and three points (15 percent) higher on the unjustified
line length subtest, both modified versions. Normal and educable
mentally retarded students' average scores did not appear to be
affected by subtest modifications. One exception to this was EMR
mean scores on the example subtest. In this one instance the
differences between mean scores reached statistical significance,
a difference of 20 percent.
Observations
Several observations were made regarding certain irregularities
in children's performances and any behaviors that occurred frequently.

76
For example, it became apparent early in the pilot study that test
performance was closely related to reading ability. Those students
who read well performed well, and those students who had poor read¬
ing skills had great difficulty taking the test and achieved low
test scores. Another effect reading ability appeared to have on
test performance was the ability of some children to understand
passages read silently. Several mildly handicapped children appeared
to demonstrate comprehension problems when reading to themselves
and less confusion when reading aloud.
Many mildly handicapped students also appeared to be lacking
in test taking skills. They did not recognize such basic direction
words as "above," "below," "same," "different," "find," or "choose."
Some students went directly from the reading passage to the test
answer choices without reading the question of interest. Two
groups of LD students, however, demonstrated outstanding test tak¬
ing skills in reading. They read the question to be answered first
and then continued to find the solution in the passage. For example,
in response to "How did the story end?" these students immediately
went to the last sentence (without reading the entire passage) and
marked the corresponding answer.
Some students also demonstrated particular difficulties with
the subskill of following directions. There was a tendency for a
great many to follow the alphabet sequence of labeled dots rather
than following the written sequence of directions. Frequently students
would also read the directions completely and then declare "I don't
know what I'm supposed to do." After the test was completed, several

77
children were taken aside and asked to redo 3-5 items from this
section. In each instance the child read the problem aloud. At
the end of each sentence that included a directional clue, the
examiners said, "Do it!" The confusion was all but eliminated and
the students performed with little difficulty.
Another consistent problem for students was those test items
measuring the child's ability to locate two particular items out
of four and then correctly mark only one of those two. For example,
"Look at these pictures. Find the apple. Find the other thing that
is good to eat. Mark the one you found last." "Find the animals.
Mark the large animal." Many children consistently marked two
answers for each question, both things to eat and both animals.
Two final observations are noted. It appeared that for some
children the best method for obtaining an accurate assessment of
ability would only be in a one to one test situation. Independent
test performance scores obtained within a group did not seem equiv¬
alent to those that could be obtained on a one to one, examiner
to student, basis. Finally, there were those students who did not
pay attention to the test item numbers. Instead of progressing
vertically down each side of the page as the test was numbered, most
t
children proceeded to answer the items presented horizontally across
the top of each page and then across the bottom. One curriculum
resource teacher noted, "It makes me so angry. The minimum compe¬
tency tests are laid out in a different order than the Ginn reading
workbooks and tests. The kids frequently get so confused." This
confusion results from reading one passage (upper left quadrant) and

78
answering questions to another passage (upper right quadrant). This
posed potential problems in this study along with affecting the
math hierarchy. It was corrected by repeatedly demonstrating the
correct order to each student individually and monitoring activity
closely.
Imp!ications
In an instance when mastery criteria are of utmost importance,
it appears that the modifications made in this study, alterations
in physical formatting, have some merit. Students taking the
modified test achieved mastery level criteria in eight of 25 sub-
skills that were not mastered on the standard version. Mastery
achievement on the modified subtests may contribute to the self-
concept and positive attitude of the mildly handicapped learner
and possibly facilitate his acquisition of a standard diploma in
some states.
As indicated in the post hoc analysis of EMR students' perform¬
ance on the example subtest, these students may indeed know how
to perform a skill but demonstrate proficiency more readily when
examples are provided. The test scores of emotionally handicapped
students also appeared to be affected (10% gain) by the inclusion
of examples.
Learning Disabled and emotionally handicapped students' scores
improved 10% with the use of boldface type. Other students however
did not appear to benefit from the additional attention created by
boldface type. Basically students who know such clue words as who,

79
what, where, not, end, first, last apparently do require any additional
emphasis to aid in comprehension.
Learning disabled students appeared to benefit (10% gain)
from alterations in line length. Other students performed similarly
on passages set in justified and unjustified manner.
It appears that the order of item presentation does not make
a difference in the performance of any category of student. If
the student is proficient with a task, he appears to be able to
demonatrate his ability regardless of placement within the test.
Similarly, answer bubble placement does not appear to affect perform¬
ance of any type of student.
As a result of observations made throughout the study, it
appears that teachers may wish to give consideration to the importance
of test taking skills. The performance of mildly handicapped students
may be enhanced from direct instruction of such skills as recog¬
nizing basic direction words (above, different, choose, other),
learning how to follow written directions, and using short cuts
for answering reading comprehension questions. Teachers may also
wish to familiarize students with the physical layout of the test.
Conclusions
There was a significant difference between modified and standard
tests on the total test scores and for the example subtest in favor
of the modified test. Emotionally handicapped and LD students
performed most similarly in all instances, as did normal and EH
students. Educable mentally retarded students consistently per¬
formed lower than any other category. There were no interactions

80
present between category of student and test form. As can be seen
from data presented in Appendix E, it was not possible to determine
significance of either sex or race on test scores due to the limited
sample size.
Results of post hoc analysis however indicated that the modifi¬
cations would be beneficial in instances where mastery was an issue.
Students needing to demonstrate mastery of a skill could do so on
32 percent more sections within the modified test than on the standard
test. Gains of 1-16 percentage points could be seen on 80 percent
of the subskills tested with the modified test in contrast to the
standard test. Also, certain modifications appeared to facilitate
acquisition of mastery by specific categories of handicapped students.
Modifications in physical formatting do not appear to improve
test scores across all categories. The inclusion of examples appears
to facilitate the demonstration of proficiency for EMR students only.
Scores for hierarchial arrangement of items, answer bubble placement,
unjustified line lengths, and boldface type did not reach levels of
significance. Trends for higher test scores (10-15% gains) were
noticed however in the use of examples and boldface type for emotion¬
ally disturbed students and with boldface type and unjustified line
lengths for learning disabled students. Due to the limited amount
of research that has been previously done, and because the results
of this study have been favorable, further research on this topic
appears justified.

REFERENCES
Abeson, A., & Zettel, J. The end of the quiet revolution: The
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Exceptional
Children, 1977, 44, 115-128.
Beattie, S., & Algozzine, B. Assessment of minimum competency in
grades three and five: An analysis of modifications to Florida's
State Student Assessment Test-I. Final Report: Contract #080-187.
Gainesville, FL: Department of Education, 1981.
Beck, M. D. Achievement test reliability as a function of pupil-
response procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1974,
21, 109-113.
Berry, M. F. Student competency testing. High School Journal, 1979,
62, 166-172.
Brenner, M. H. Test difficulty, reliability, and discrimination as
functions of item difficulty order. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1964, 48, 98-100.
Cashen, V. M., & Ramseyer, G. The use of separate answer sheets by
primary age children. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1969,
6, 155-157.
Clark, C. A. The use of separate answer sheets in testing slow-learning
pupils. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5^, 61-64.
Clift, T. The regents competency testing program: Competency testing,
remedial instruction and high school credentials. New York:
The University of the State of New York, The State Education
Department, 1979.
Copperman, P. The literacy hoax: The decline of reading, writing,
and learning in the public schools and what we can do about it.
New York: Morrow, 1978.
Craig, J. Designing with type: A basic course in typography. New
York: Watson-Gupti11, 1971.
Denninger, M. L. Minimum competency testing: Benefits and dangers
for the handicapped student. NASSP Bulletin, 1979, 63, 43-48.
n
o
1

82
Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, 407 N.Y.S. 2d 874
(App. Div. 1978).
Erdmann, R. L., & Neal, A. S. Word legibility as a function of
letter legibility, with word size, word familiarity, and
resolution as parameters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968,
52, 403-409.
Ewing, N. J. Minimum competency testing and the handicapped: Major
issues. High School Journal, 1979, £3, 114-119.
Ferguson, G. A. Statistical analysis in psychology and education
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Flaugher, R. L., Melton, R. S., & Myers, C. T. Item rearrangement
under typical test conditions. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1968, 2£, 813-824.
Florida Department of Education. A resource manual for the development
and evaluation of special programs for exceptional students (Vol.
I-A) Exceptional student programs: An overviiw^ Tal 1ahassee,
FL: State of Florida, 1979.
Florida Department of Education. Statistical Report: 1980-81.
State and district report of results, Series 81-05. Tallahssee,
FL: Division of Public Schools, February 1981.
Fonda, G. An evaluation of large type. New Outlook for the Blind,
1968, 62, 233-239.
Gaffney, R. F., & Maguire, T. 0. Use of optically scored test answer
sheets with young children. Journal of Educational Measurement,
1971, 8, 103-106.
Gearheart, B. R., & Willenberg, E. P. Application of pupil assessment
information for the special education teacher (2-¡nd ed.). Denver:
Love, 1974.
Greenberg, L. Test development procedures for including handicapped
students in New Jersey's state assessment program. Trenton, NJ:
State Department of Education, 1980.
Grise", P. J. Florida's minimum competency testing program for handi¬
capped students. Exceptional Children, 1980, £7, 186-193.
Grise", P. J. Personal communication, October 11, 1981.
Hartley, J., Davies, L., & Burnhill, P. Alternatives in the typo¬
graphic design of questionnaires. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 1977, 50, 299-304.

83
Holliday, W. G., & Partridge, L. A. Differential sequencing effects
of test items on children. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 1979, 16, 407-411.
Kaluzny, B. A. Competency testing and the handicapped student.
Education Unlimited, 1979, 1, 72-73.
Madaus, G. F. NIE clarification hearing: The negative team's case.
Phi Delta Kappan, 1981, 63, 92-94.
Majors, G. W., & Michael, J. J. The relationship of achievement on a
teacher-made mathematics test of computational skills to two
ways of recording answers and to two workspace arrangements.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35, 1005-1009.
Margolis, H., Brannigan, G. G., & Penner, W. J. Modification of
impulsive visual discrimination performance. Journal of Special
Education, 1978, J_2, 29-35.
Marsh, G. E. II, Gearheart, G. K., & Gearheart, B. R. The learning
disabled adolescent: Program alternatives in the secondary school.
St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1978.
Marso, R. N. Test item arrangement, testing time, and performance.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 1970, 113-118.
McCarthy, M. M. Minimum competency testing and handicapped students.
Exceptional Children, 1980, 47, 166-175.
McClung, M. S. Competency testing: Potential for discrimination.
Clearing House Review, 1977, Jl_, 439-448.
McClung, M. S. Competency testing programs: Legal and educational
issues. Fordham Law Review, 1979, ¿L7, 651-712.
McClung, M. S., & Pullin, D. Competency testing and handicapped students
Clearinghouse Review, 1978, Vj_, 922-927.
Morsink, C. (Ed.). DELTA: A design for word attack growth. Tulsa, OK:
Educational Development Corporation, 1977.
Muller, D., Calhoun, E., & Orling, R. Test reliability as a function
of answer sheet mode. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1972,
9, 321-324.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education and the
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of
Exceptional Children. Competency testing, special education and
the awarding of diplomas. Washington, DC: National Association
of State Directors of Special Education, 1979.

84
Neill, S. B. A summary of issues in the minimum competency movement.
Phi Delta Kappan, 1979, 60, 452-453.
Pabian, J. M. Education malpractice and minimal competency testing:
Is there a legal remedy at last? New England Law Review, 1979,
15, 101-127.
Perez, J. Procedural adaptations and format modifications in minimum
competency testing of learning disabled students: A clinical
investigation. Unpublished manuscript, University of South
Florida, 1980.
Peter, W. v. San Francisco Unified School District, 131 Cal. Rptr. 854
(1976).
Pinkney, H. B. The minimum competency movement in education. Clearing
House, 1979, 52, 413-416.
Popham, W. J. The case for minimum competency testing. Phi Delta
Kappan, 1981, 63^, 89-92.
Reichard, C. L., & Reid, W. R. An investigation of format for reading
material for the educable mentally retarded. Journal of Reading,
1970, 13., 363-366.
Safer, N. D. Implications of minimum competency standards and testing
for handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46^, 288-292.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. Assessment in special and remedial
education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.
Sawyer, H. G. When ad budgets require compromise, impact is most
strategic choice. Industrial Marketing, 1975, 60, 66,
Shaw, A. Print for partial sight. London: The Library Association,
1969.
Sirotnik, K., & Wellington, R. Scrambling content in achievement testing
Application of multiple matrix sampling in experimental design.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 1974, Tl_, 179-188.
Smith, L. D., & Jenkins, D. S. Minimum competency testing and handi¬
capped students. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 440-443.
State of Florida. Florida Statutes, Chapter 232, Section 246.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 1979.
State of Florida. Proposed State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.943,
revised. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 1980.

85
Sykes, K. C. A comparison of the effectiveness of standard print
and large print in facilitating the reading skills of visually
impaired students. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1971,
3, 97-105.
Tinker, M. Legibility of print. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press, 1963. [a)
Tinker, M. Typography and design (training series). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. (b)
Tinker, M. A., & Patterson, D. G. Influence of type form on speed of
reading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1928, 12^, 359-368.
Watts, D. Is competency testing the answer? Clearinq House, 1979,
52, 243-245.
Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. Critical issues in special and
remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.

APPENDIX A
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Specific Learning Disabilities
Specific learning disabilities—one who exhibits a disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in under¬
standing or in using spoken and written language. These may be mani¬
fested in disorders of listening, thinking, reading, talking, writing,
spelling, or arithmetic. They do not include learning problems which
are due primarily to visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, to mental
retardation, emotional disturbance, or to an environmental depriva¬
tion.
1. Criteria for Eligibility
a. The student must be of school age.
b. Evidence of a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes.
(1) Based on a student's expected level of functioning
a score of two standard deviations or less below the
mean in one process area or a score of one and one-
half standard deviations or less below the mean in
three or more process areas. Process areas are
defined as: visual channel processes, auditory
channel processes, haptic channel processes, language
86

87
processes, and sensory integrated processes. In
cases where the standard deviation is not available,
a score of 70 percent or less of the student's
expectancy age in one process area of 80 percent or
less in three or more process areas may be used.
(2) Evidence of a process strength at or above the
student's expected level of functioning.
(3) If more than one process test instrument is used to
document a deficit or strength, the results must con¬
sistently show deficits or strengths in the same
process area. If more than one level of function¬
ing is obtained, the mean level of functioning will
be used to establish a deficit or strength.
(4) Only subtests appropriate for the student's expectancy
age should be used for placement purposes.
(5) A student does not qualify for eligibility if the
following subtests are the only ones that indicate
a process strength or deficit.
(a) Detroit Test of Learning Abilities
Free Association
Social Adjustment A
Social Adjustment B
Number Ability
(b) Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities
Manual Expression
Grammatic Closure
Sound Blending
In order for these subtests to be considered, they must
be viewed in conjunction with other subtests.

88
c. Evidence of academic deficits.
(1) Based on the student's expected level of functioning,
a score of: 85 percent expectancy age or below for
third through sixth grade; 75 percent expectancy age
or below for seventh through ninth grade; or 65 per¬
cent expectancy age or below for tenth through twelfth
grade is required in one or more of the following
academic areas: reading, writing, arithmetic, or
spelling. For students in kindergarten and first
grade, evidence must be presented that achievement is
95 percent expectancy age or below on preacademic tasks
which require listening, thinking, or speaking skills.
For students in second grade, evidence must be presented
that achievement is 90 percent expectancy age or below
on preacademic tasks which require listening, thinking,
or speaking skills. A student may not be placed for a
deficit in either writing or spelling or both.
(2) If more than one academic instrument is used to document
a weakness, the results must consistently show deficits
in the same academic area. If more than one level of
functioning is obtained, the mean level of functioning
will be used to establish weakness.
d. Evidence that learning problems are not due primarily to
other handicapping conditions.
(1) A score of not less than two standard deviations below
the mean on an individual test of intellectual functioning

89
or evidence indicator of the student's intellectual
potential.
(2) For students with visual processing deficits, visual
acuity of at least 20/70 in the better eye with best
possible correction or evidence that the student's
inability to perform adequately on tasks which require
visual processing is not due to poor visual acuity.
(3) For students with auditory processing or language deficits,
auditory acuity of not more than a 30 decibel loss in the
better ear unaided or evidence that the student's inability
to perform adequately on tasks which require auditory
processing or language is due to poor auditory acuity.
(4) For student with a motor handicap, evidence that the
inability to perform adequately on tasks which assess the
basic psychological processes is not due to the motor
handicap.
(5) For students who exhibit persistent and consistent severe
emotional disturbance evidence that their inability to
perform adequately on tasks which assess the basic psycho¬
logical processes is not due to the emotional disturbance.
e. Documented evidence which indicates that viable general educa¬
tional alternatives have been attempted and found to be
ineffective in meeting the student's educational needs.

90
Educable Mentally Retarded
Educable mentally retarded—one who is mildly impaired in intel¬
lectual and adaptive behavior and whose development reflects a reduced
rate of learning. The measured intelligence of an educable mentally
retarded student generally falls between two (2) and three (3)
standard deviations below the mean, and the assessed adaptive
behavior falls below age and cultural expectations.
1. Criteria for Eligibility
a. The measured level of intellectual functioning, as determined
by performance on an individual test of intelligence, is
between two (2) and three (3) standard deviations below the
mean. The standard error of measurement may be considered in
individual cases. The profile of intellectual functioning
shows consistent sub-average performance in a majority of
areas evaluated.
b. The assessed level of adaptive behavior is below age and
cultural expectations.
c. Sub-average performance on a standardized measure of academic
achievement is demonstrated.
Emotionally Handicapped
Emotionally handicapped—one who after receiving supportive
educational assistance and counseling services available to all
students, still exhibits a persistent and consistent severe emotional
handicap which consequently disrupts the student's own learning
process. This is the student whose inability to achieve adequate

91
academic progress or satisfactory interpersonal relationships cannot
be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits.
1. Criteria for Eligibility
a. Evidence that the student has received supportive educational
assistance counseling.
b. Evidence that the student exhibits a persistent and consistent
severe emotional handicap as determined by documented observa¬
tions and psychological evaluation.
c. Evidence that the behavior disrupts the student's ability to
achieve adequate academic progress or develop satisfactory
interpersonal relationships.
d. Evidence that the primary problem of the student cannot be
attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual
deficits.

APPENDIX B
PARENT PERMISSION SLIPS
Dear Parent,
I am currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special
Education at the University of Florida. I am in the process of con¬
ducting a study to find out if differences in the way test questions
are worded, placed, or marked will affect how third grade students do
on the test.
Children in this study will be asked to take a 100 item test,
which should take about 90 minutes. The test will be much like the
State Student Assessment Test which third graders in Florida take
each October. The test scores will remain confidential and will not
be recorded in any of the students' permanent records. The scores
merely will be used to compare the achievement of different groups,
based on individual test changes.
The study will be conducted under the supervision of Special
Education staff members of the Orange County Public Schools.
I would be most willing to answer any questions you may have
regarding the goals or procedures of this study. If you agree to
allow your child to participate in this study, please sign and date
this form. You can always withdraw your consent for your child's
participation at any time without prejudice.
92

93
Please have your child return this form to school as soon as
possible. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Beattie
********************************************************************
Parent of
(child's name)
Parent signature
Date

94
Dear Parent,
I am currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special
Education at the University of Florida. I am in the process of con¬
ducting a study regarding the effect of physical test item modifica¬
tions on the performance of third grade students. This form is asking
parents for their written consent to have their son or daughter
participate in the study.
The study will be conducted within the Alachua County School
System. We will be asking each child to take a 100 item test, which
should take approximately 90 minutes. There will be two tests
utilized; a standard form and a modified version. There are no dis¬
comforts or risks anticipated for any of the students. Additionally,
there will be no monetary compensation offered. The test scores
obtained in this study will remain confidential and will not be
recorded in any of the student's permanent records. The scores will
be merely used to compare the achievement of different groups, based
on individual test modifications.
As educators, we are continually striving to discover the most
appropriate way of assessing individual children's cognitive abilities.
It is hoped that the results of this study will provide valuable
information regarding the test taking abilities of elementary aged
children under different circumstances.
I would be most willing to answer any questions you may have
regarding the goals or procedures of this effort. If you agree to

95
allow your child to participate in this study, please sign and date
this form. There will always be the option available to withdraw
your consent for your child's participation in this study at any
time without prejudice. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Beattie
*******************************************************************
Signatures:
Subject
Date
Witness
Date
Relationship if other than Date
subject
Principal Investiga- Date
tor's name and address

APPENDIX C
SAMPLE TEST—STANDARD
DIRECTIONS: The list of words in each box is in alphabetical
order. (Remember, that means A,B,C order.) Choose the word to
14.
the blank
that
will keep each
list in
alphabetical
order.
1. bag
16.
1. absent
2.
CD
part
2. donkey
CO
3. orange
cd
under
3. goal
CO
4. road
CD
earth
4.
CD
5. teach
CO
rose
5. next
CD
1. letter
2. new
CO
snow
3.
CD
corn
4. wide
CD
king
5. zebra
CO
dead
17.
1. giant
2.
CO
3. nest
CD
4. shirt
CO
5. vest
CD
ear
light
depart
park
brain
ruler
field
heart
96

97
DIRECTIONS: Read the story in
each box. Choose the best
answer for each question.
The bee bit the puppy on
his nose. The puppy ran to the
dish of water. He put his nose
in the water.
Who
bit
the puppy?
CO
the
man
CO
the
cat
CO
the
bee
CO
the
dog
30.Where did the puppy run?
CIO to his mother
i—> to his dish of water
i—> to the lake
d) to a tree
In the Fall, witches fly
through the sky on brooms.
Once a witch bumped into a cloud.
Her broom broke and she fell to
the ground.
31.What did the witch do?
CO bump into a cloud
1 sing a song
co scare people
<—i win the race
32.When do witches fly in
the sky?
co in the clouds
i—i in the Fall
i—i on a broom
i—i over the moon

98
DIRECTIONS: Read these problems.
Figure out the right answer.
45. There were 33 boys and 22
girls at a lake swimming. How
many children were swimming
together?
64 children
55 children
11 children
10 children
47. Jennifer won 24 games.
Tom won 35 games. How many
games did they win in all?
CD
11
games
CD
51
games
CD
14
games
CD
59
games
46. The library had 76 books.
The library bought 22 more books.
How many books are in the
library now?
48. Sally made 32 cookies.
Fred made 15 cookies. How
many cookies did Sally and
Fred make altogether?
98 books
17 books
54 books
58 books
CD 61 cookies
CD 47 cookies
i—i 23 cookies
CD 11 cookies

99
61. Subtract: 47
) 64. Subtract: 66
- 20
1 - 3
CD 49
i ‘—1
CO 27
j CO 15
CD 13 I
Í CO 51
CCD 23
1 CO 63
62. Subtract: 78 - 3 =
65. Subtract: 58 -24 =
CCD 75 l
CZD 7
CO 12
CO 19
CO 18 :
<—i 34
CO 73 t
CO 82
63. Subtract: 13 - 7 =
66. Subtract: 14
- 5
co 4 j
CD 9
o 6 f
CZD 11
CZO 11 {
i—i 46
CO 20 l
CO 19

100
DIRECTIONS: Read the story and answer the question.
93. Bob and Jim were on the same
football team. Bob scored 21
points. Jim scored 7 points.
Altogether, how many points did
Bob and Jim score?
95. There are 15 boys in Miss
Smith's class. There are
also 13 girls in the class.
How many children are in the
class altogether?
co 10 points
CD 28 points
CO 26 points
c=> 17 points
94. John caught 32 fish. Mike
caught 24 fish. How many fish
did they catch in all?
co 28 children
(—i 10 children
i—i 2 children
co 46 children
96. Sally went on a trip and
drove 56 miles. Her
husband drove 33 miles.
How many miles did Sally
and her husband drive
altogether?
CO 74 fish
co 56 fish
co 8 fish
i—i 11 fish
co 23 miles
CO 90 miles
i—> 17 miles
CO 89 miles

APPENDIX D
SAMPLE TEST—MODIFIED
DIRECTIONS: The list of words in each box is in alphabetical
order. (Remember, that means A,B,C order.) Choose the word to
go in the blank that will keep each list in alphabetical order.
EXAMPLE
1. dog
<—> zoo
2. fight
i—> apple
3.
CZD COW
4. paper
(—) man
5. street
101

102
DIRECTIONS: Read the story in
each box. Choose the best
answer for each question.
The bee bit the puppy on
his nose. The puppy ran to the
dish of water. He put his nose
in the water.
29. Who bit the puppy?
CO the man
i—i the cat
CO the bee
CO the dog
30.Where did the puppy run?
i—i to his mother
CO to his dish of water
CO to the lake
i—' to a tree
In the Fall, witches fly
through the sky on brooms.
Once a witch bumped into a cloud.
Her broom broke and she fell to
the ground.
31.What did the witch do?
c=l bump into a cloud
CO sing a song
,—a scare people
, win the race
32.When do witches fly in
the sky?
CO in the clouds
CO in the Fall
i—' on a broom
i—i over the moon

103
DIRECTIONS: Read these problems.
Figure out the right answer.
45. There were 33 boys and 22
girls at a lake swimming. How
many children were swimming
together?
64 children a
55 children <—>
11 children i—i
10 children ,—,
47. Jennifer won 24 games.
Tom won 35 games. How many
games did they win in all?
11 games
51 games
14 games
59 games
46.
The library had 76 books.
The library bought 22 more books.
How many books are in the
library now?
98 books CD
17 books CD
54 books CD
58 books c3
Sally made 32 cookies.
Fred made 15 cookies. How
many cookies did Sally and
Fred make altogether?
61
cookies
O
47
cookies
CD
23
cookies
CD
11
cookies
CD

104

105
DIRECTIONS: Read the story and answer the question.
93. Bob and Jim were on the same football team.
Bob scored 21 points.
Jim scored 7 points.
Altogether, how many points did Bob and Jim score?
CO 10 points
CO 28 points
O 26 points
CO 17 points
94.
John caught 32 fish.
Mike caught 24 fish.
How many fish did they catch
in all?
CO 74
fish
<=> 56
fish
CO 8
fish
<=> 11
fish
95. There are 15 boys in Miss Smith's class.
There are also 13 girls in the class.
How many children are in the class altogether?
CO 28 children
co 10 children
CO 2 children
CD 46 children
96. Sally went on a trip and drove 56 miles.
Her husband drove 33 miles.
How many miles did Sally and her husband drive altogether?
CO 23 miles
CO 90 miles
i—, 17 miles
CO 89 miles

APPENDIX E
MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES BY CATEGORY, RACE, AND SEX
(n) x Total Score (n) x Subtest Score
Total Example Boldface Answer Bubble Hierarchy Line Length
Standard Modified Std. Mod. Std. Mod. Std. Mod. Std. Mod. Std. Mod.
Normal
M
B
(2) 90.5
(4) 92.5
19.0
18.7
17.0
18.7
18.0
18.7
19.0
18.7
17.5
17.5
W
(1) 79.0
(1) 94.0
14.0
20.0
15.0
20.0
16.0
18.0
15.0
20.0
19.0
15.0
p
B
(5) 91.4
(3) 89.6
18.0
18.0
18.6
17.3
19.0
18.3
19.6
19.0
16.2
17.0
r
W
(2) 88.0
(2) 98.0
19.5
19.5
17.5
19.0
19.0
20.0
17.0
20.0
15.0
20.0
LD
M
B
(2) 63.5
(2) 65.0
16.0
16.0
9.5
10.0
12.5
11.0
12.0
15.0
13.5
13.0
W
(3) 69.6
(5) 81.6
14.7
17.0
14.6
16.0
11.3
15.0
17.0
17.4
12.0
15.8
P
B
(1) 76.0
(0) -
19.0
-
16.0
_
16.0
_
17.0
_
8.0
I
W
(4) 75.7
(3) 81.6
15.0
14.3
14.2
17.6
15.5
17.0
17.7
17.6
13.2
15.0
EH
M
B
(4) 65.7
(6) 81.0
13.0
16.0
12.2
16.3
14.5
17.1
15.0
17.6
11 .0
13.8
W
(5) 88.0
(2) 79.0
17.6
17.0
18.4
13.5
17.2
16.5
18.0
16.0
16.6
16.0
P
B
(1) 60.0
(0) -
14.0
-
8.0
_
11.0
_
19.0
_
10.0
_
r
W
(0) -
(2) 94.5
-
19.5
-
20.0
-
19.0
-
19.0
-
17.0
EMR
M
B
(2) 35.5
(5) 55.6
8.0
13.4
6.5
9.0
7.5
4.4
8.0
14.8
5.5
9.6
W
(4) 40.0
(1) 35.0
6.0
5.0
8.2
9.0
8.5
0.0
9.7
3.0
7.5
6.0
p
B
(2) 26.5
(1) 36.0
6.0
11.0
3.0
4.0
7.0
0.0
7.5
5.0
13.0
5.0
I
W
(2) 51.5
(3) 38.0
9.5
9.0
9.5
8.3
10.0
3.2
13.0
9.6
5.5
5.6
o
cr>

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Susan Beattie was born in Geneva, New York, on December 28,
1949. Upon completion of high school, she entered the State
University College at Buffalo, New York. At the end of her junior
year (1969), she went to Europe, studied at the University of
Maryland (West Germany), and traveled extensively before returning in
1973. She completed her undergraduate program at State University
College at Buffalo and in 1973 was awarded a B.S. degree in speech
pathology and audiology. She then continued her studies at SUCB
to receive an M.S.Ed. in communication disorders in 1975.
Susan worked at the Buffalo Hearing and Speech Center as a
speech pathologist for four years. Her primary responsibilities
were assessment and remediation of preschool handicapped populations
and the hearing impaired.
She and her husband, John, moved to Gainesville, Florida, in
1977 to enable John to pursue an advanced degree in special educa¬
tion. For three years she was employed with the Alachua County
School System as a learning disabilities teacher, speech therapist,
and self-contained language clinician.
107

108
She enrolled at the University of Florida to pursue an
advanced degree in learning disabilities. Her minor areas
included early assessment and administration/supervision. She
hopes to gain employment as an educational diagnostician in a
children's hospital or special education administrator in a large
urban school system.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert F. Algozzine,; Chairman
Professor of Special~tducation
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Cecil D. Mercer
Professor of Special Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Catherine V. Morsink
Professor of Special Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Stephérn F. Olejnik*^
Assistant Professor of Foundations
of Education

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Re>T EJ Schmi<
Associate Professor of Special
Education
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Special Education in the College of Education and
to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1982
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
III III III mu III"
3 1262 08556 8276




PAGE 1

7+( ())(&7 2) 3+<6,&$/ 7(67 )250$7 02',),&$7,216 21 7+( 3(5)250$1&( 2) 7+,5' *5$'( 0,/'/< +$1',&$33(' $1' 1250$/ 678'(176 %< 686$1 %($77,( $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

$&.12:/('*(0(176 7KH %OL]]DUG RI n LQ %XIIDOR 1HZ
PAGE 3

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
PAGE 4

WKHUH
PAGE 5

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f f f YQL

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

,PSOLFDWLRQV &RQFOXVLRQV 5()(5(1&(6 $33(1',; $ (/,*,%,/,7< &5,7(5,$ % 3$5(17 3(50,66,21 6/,36 & 6$03/( 7(67f§67$1'$5' 6$03/( 7(67f§02',),(' ( 0($1 3(5)250$1&( 6&25(6 %< &$7(*25< 5$&( $1' 6(; %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ f f 9OO

PAGE 8

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nV GLVDELOLW\ ,Q DQ HIIRUW WR PDNH WHVWV IDLU WR KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQV VXFK PRGLILFDWLRQV DV KHDG SRLQWHUV EUDLOOH W\SH DQG DOWHUDWLRQV LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG VHWWLQJ KDYH EHHQ LQVWLWXWHG /LWWOH V\VWHPDWLF VWXG\ KRZHYHU KDV EHHQ GLUHFWHG WRZDUGV PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV RU SK\VLFDO WHVW LWHP IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ LQYHVWLn JDWHG WKH HIIHFW RI ILYH SK\VLFDO IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV RQ WKH SHUIRUPn DQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG DQG QRUPDO WKLUG JUDGH VWXGHQWV 7KH \LQ

PAGE 9

PRGLILFDWLRQV LQFOXGHG DOWHUDWLRQV LQ OLQH OHQJWKV LQFOXVLRQ RI H[DPSOHV WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH IRU HPSKDVLV SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV DQG WKH DUUDQJHPHQW RI LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ (LJKW\ VWXGHQWV ZHUH UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG IURP IRXU SRSXODWLRQV LH QRUPDO OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG /'f HPRWLRQn DOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG (+f DQG HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG (05f VWXGHQWV 7KH VWXGHQWV ZHUH PDWFKHG ZLWKLQ HDFK FDWHJRU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ DQG WKHQ UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR HLWKHU WKH PRGLILHG RU WKH VWDQGn DUG WHVW JURXS 'DWD ZHUH DQDO\]HG DW D OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH RI D 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW RYHUDOO WRWDO WHVW VFRUHV ZHUH VLJQLIL FDQWO\ KLJKHU RQ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW WKDQ RQ WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW 7KHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WHVW IRUP VFRUHV IRU IRXU RXW RI ILYH PRGLILFDWLRQ VXEWHVWV 3HUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV RQ WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW KRZHYHU ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU RQ WKH PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ WKDQ RQ WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW YHUVLRQ 3HUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV IRU HPRWLRQn DOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG DQG /' VWXGHQWV ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLPLODU DV ZHUH WKH VFRUHV IRU QRUPDO DQG (+ VWXGHQWV (05 VWXGHQWV FRQVLVWHQWO\ VFRUHG ORZHU WKDQ RWKHU FDWHJRULHV RI VWXGHQWV 5HVXOWV RI D SRVW KRF DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW PRGLILFDWLRQV RI SK\VLFDO WHVW IRUPDW PD\ KDYH VRPH PHULW LQ PDVWHU\ OHYHO VLWXDWLRQV 0HDQ SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV RQ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW VXUSDVVHG PDVWHU\ FULWHULD IRU SHUFHQW RI WKH VXEVNLOO VHFWLRQV IDLOHG E\ WKH VWXGHQWV WDNLQJ W WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW ,W DSSHDUV WKDW VLPSOH PRGLILFDWLRQV FDQ EH PDGH LQ PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWV WKDW DIIHFW WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI VWXGHQWV 7KHVH

PAGE 10

PRGLILFDWLRQV DSSHDUHG WR KDYH D JUHDWHU HIIHFW RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV WKDQ RQ WKDW RI QRUPDO VWXGHQWV &RQWLQXHG UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHD RI PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV DSSHDUV ZDUUDQWHG [

PAGE 11

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 $PHULFD VSHQGV ELOOLRQ DQQXDOO\ RQ HGXFDWLRQ DQG DGPLQn LVWHUV RYHU PLOOLRQ WHVWV $V D UHVXOW RI VXFK HQRUPRXV H[SHQn GLWXUHV RI WLPH DQG PRQH\ RQH PD\ DVVXPH WKDW $PHULFD LV D IXOO\ OLWHUDWH VRFLHW\ 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKLV DSSHDUV WR EH XQWUXH $ FRQJUHVVLRQDO VXUYH\ UHYHDOHG WKDW SHUFHQW RI RXU \HDUROG \RXWKV DUH IXQFWLRQDO LOOLWHUDWHV 3DELDQ f $QRWKHU VXUYH\ SXEOLVKHG LQ E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH +(:f VXSSRUWHG WKHVH GDWD DQG VWDWHG WKDW DQ HVWLPDWHG RQH PLOOLRQ $PHULFDQ \RXWKV EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG FDQ QRW UHDG DW D IRXUWK JUDGH OHYHO DQG FDQ WKHUHIRUH EH ODEHOHG DV LOOLWHUDWH FLWHG LQ 0F&OXQJ f
PAGE 12

UHSRUWHG WKDW WKHUH LV JURZLQJ HYLGHQFH WKDW VKLIWV LQ SROLF\ H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG EHKDYLRU ZLWKLQ VFKRROV WKHPVHOYHV KDYH FRQWULEn XWHG WR WKH GRFXPHQWHG GHFOLQH LQ ZULWLQJ VNLOOV DQG DSWLWXGH WHVW VFRUHV %HUU\ S f 7KH ORZ SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHO LQ RXU VFKRROV KDV DOVR EHHQ DWWULEXWHG WR WKH DPRXQW RI RQ WDVN OHDUQLQJ WLPH $FFRUGLQJ WR %HUU\ f VWXGHQWV WHQG WR EH RQ WDVN IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO GD\ 7KH LPSDFW RI WKLV VWDWLVWLF LV PDJQLILHG ZKHQ RQH UHDOL]HV WKDW RQO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH WRWDO VFKRRO GD\ LV DFWXDOO\ GHYRWHG WR OHDUQLQJ ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKHUH DSSHDUV WR EH D GHFOLQH LQ WKH QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ FRUH DFDGHPLF VXEMHFWV DQG DQ LQFUHDVH LQ WKH QXPEHU RI RSWLRQDO FRXUVHV DYDLODEOH %HUU\ &RSSHUPDQ f 3XEOLF FULWLFLVP DQG ULJLG VXUYHLOODQFH RI RXU VFKRROV ZRXOG DSSHDU WR EH MXVWLILHG LI VWXGHQWV ZKR JUDGXDWH DIWHU \HDUV RI HGXFDWLRQ DUH WUXO\ XQDEOH WR UHDG DQG ZULWH (YHQ ZLWK WKH DFNQRZOHGJHn PHQW WKDW WKHUH DUH RWKHU YDULDEOHV VXFK DV KRPH IDPLO\ DQG FRPPXQLW\ $ LQIOXHQFHVf WKDW GR FRQWULEXWH WR DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV DFKLHYHPHQW SRWHQWLDO LW ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW RXU VFKRROV PXVW VWLOO DVVXPH WKH SULPDU\ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU JUDGXDWLQJ LOOLWHUDWHV 3LQNQH\ f &XUUHQW ,QWHUHVW LQ 0LQLPXP &RPSHWHQF\ 3URJUDPV (GXFDWRUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV OHJDO FRQVXOWDQWV SDUHQWV DQG HPSOR\HUV KDYH EHFRPH LQFUHDVLQJO\ FRQFHUQHG DERXW WKH PDVWHU\ RI VNLOOV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ JUDGXDWLQJ KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV 7KLV FRQFHUQ KDV EHHQ IRVWHUHG QRW RQO\ E\ WKH SUHYLRXVO\ FLWHG VWDWLVWLFV EXW DOVR

PAGE 13

E\ WKH JUDGXDO GHFOLQH LQ 6FKRODVWLF $SWLWXGH 7HVW 6$7f VFRUHV &RSSHUPDQ f DQG UHFHQW OLWLJDWLRQ LQ WKH FRXUWV 'RQRKXH Y &RSLDJXH 8QLRQ )UHH 6FKRRO 'LVWULFW 3HWHU : Y 6DQ )UDQFLVFR 8QLILHG 6FKRRO 'LVWULFW f ,Q DQ HIIRUW WR UHGXFH LOOLWHUDF\ VWDWLVWLFV DQG HOLPLQDWH WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI IXWXUH OLWLJDWLRQ PDQ\ HGXFDWRUV DQG FRQFHUQHG PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ KDYH IRFXVHG WKHLU DWWHQWLRQ RQ PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ SURJUDPV $OWKRXJK WKH PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ 0&7f FRPSRQHQW KDV GUDZQ WKH PRVW DWWHQWLRQ UHFHQWO\ LW LV EXW RQH FRPSRQHQW RI WKH PRUH JOREDO FRQFHSW RI FRPSHWHQF\ EDVHG HGXFDWLRQ &%(f 0LQLPXP &RPSHWHQF\ 7HVWLQJ :LWKLQ $ &RPSHWHQF\ %DVHG (GXFDWLRQ )UDPHZRUN &RPSHWHQF\ EDVHG HGXFDWLRQ &%(f LV FRPSULVHG RI ILYH PDMRU FRPn SRQHQWV 7KH\ LQFOXGH Df HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI HGXFDWLRQDO REMHFWLYHV Ef GHYHORSPHQW RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHVV Ff FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ Gf SURYLVLRQ IRU UHPHGLDO LQVWUXFWLRQ DQG Hf SURJUDP HYDOXDWLRQ DQG UHFRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ :DWWV f ,W LV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH ILYH FRPSRQHQWV DUH LQWHUGHSHQGHQW DQG WKH LQFRUSRUDWLRQ RI MXVW RQH RU WZR FRPSRQHQWV ZRXOGEH SXQLWLYH WR DQ\ VWXGHQW (GXFDWRUV ZKR DGYRFDWH FRPSHWHQF\ EDVHG HGXFDWLRQ IRUHVHH D SURFHVV WKDW ZLOO HQVXUH WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI IXQGDPHQWDO NQRZOHGJH 7KH\ FRQWHQG WKDW WKH DWWDLQPHQW RI D VWDQGDUG VHW RI VNLOOV DQG DELOLWLHV FDQ HQKDQFH D VWXGHQWnV FKDQFHV IRU OHDGLQJ D KDSS\ DQG SURGXFWLYH OLIH 7KH\ DUJXH WKDW LI XVHG SURSHUO\ &%( FDQ DOVR DVVLVW LQ WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG FRUUHFWLRQ RI ZHDNQHVVHV LQ RXU HGXFDWLRQDO

PAGE 14

V\VWHP 3RVVLEO\ FRPSHWHQF\ EDVHG HGXFDWLRQ FRXOG IDFLOLWDWH $PHULFDnV HIIRUW WR UHHVWDEOLVK WKH SULRULW\ DQG KLJK HVWHHP RI LWV HGXFDWLRQDO V\VWHP 7KH FXUULFXOXP REMHFWLYHV DQG LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHVV ZLWKLQ &%( DUH PHDVXUHG E\ FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ VFRUHV 7KH FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWV DUH FULWHULRQUHIHUHQFHG DQG PHDVXUH D VWXGHQWnV SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLYH WR D VSHFLILHG VHW RI EHKDYLRUV 7KH\ GLIIHU IURP QRUPUHIHUHQFHG WHVWV LQ WKDW WKH\ GR QRW FRPSDUH VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH WR DQ HVWDEOLVKHG VWDQGDUG 1RUP UHIHUHQFHG WHVWV GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDOV ZKHUHDV FULWHULRQ UHIHUHQFHG WHVWV FDQ EH UHJDUGHG DV WKH EHVW LQGLn FDWLRQ RI ZKDW LV EHLQJ WDXJKW LQ WKH FODVVURRP 'HQQLQJHU f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

PAGE 15

$FFRUGLQJ WR 3RSKDP f QHDUO\ VWDWHV KDYH HVWDEOLVKHG PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ SURJUDPV FRYHULQJ WKH EDVLF VNLOOV RI UHDGLQJ ZULWLQJ DQG PDWKHPDWLFV 6HYHQWHHQ RI WKRVH VWDWHV KDYH DOVR HVWDEOLVKHG FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ DV D UHTXLUHPHQW IRU KLJK VFKRRO JUDGXDWLRQ 1HLOO f 5HDFWLRQV WR 0LQLPXP &RPSHWHQF\ 7HVWLQJ 3RVLWLYH HIIHFWV $FFRUGLQJ WR 3RSKDP f WKHUH DUH VHYHUDO SRVLWLYH DWWULEXWHV WR WKH 0&7 SURJUDP 3LQNQH\ f KDV LGHQWLILHG WKH SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VSHFLILF WR )ORULGDnV SURJUDP %RWK VWXGHQWV DQG WHDFKHUV KDYH EHHQ SURYLGHG ZLWK D OLVW RI H[DFWO\ ZKLFK VNLOOV DUH WR EH PDVWHUHG E\ WKH VWXGHQWV DQG D WLPHn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nV HGXFDWLRQ 7KH UHDOL]DWLRQ WKDW WKHLU FKLOGUHQ ZLOO EH UHTXLUHG WR GHPRQVWUDWH PDVWHU\ RI EDVLF VNLOOV DW WKH UG WK WK DQG WK JUDGH KDV VWLPXODWHG SDUHQWV WR PRQLWRU FRQWLQXDO SURJUHVV

PAGE 16

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nV IHHOLQJ RI IDLOXUH DQG HQKDQFH WKH FKDQFH RI VXFFHVV 3DELDQ f QRWHG WKDW LQ WKH HDUO\ nV WKH TXDOLW\ RI WHDFKLQJ LQ WKH XUEDQ JKHWWR ZDV UHODWLYHO\ ORZ ZLWK SHUFHQW RI WKH KLJK VFKRRO JUDGXDWHV EHLQJ FODVVLILHG DV IXQFWLRQDO LOOLWHUDWHV 7KH 3\JPDOLRQ HIIHFW GRPLQDWHG DV WHDFKHUV REVHUYLQJ VWXGHQWV KDYLQJ GLIILFXOW\ OHDUQLQJ DFDGHPLFV DWWULEXWHG WKH GLIILFXOW\ WR VRFLRn HFRQRPLF IDFWRUV DQG VWRSSHG WU\LQJ WR WHDFK WKH LPSRVVLEOH 3LQNQH\ f IHHOV WKH 0&7 SURJUDP LQ )ORULGD KDV FRXQWHUDFWHG WKLV 3\JPDOLRQ HIIHFW +H PDLQWDLQV WKDW WKH WHDFKHUVn H[SHFWDWLRQ OHYHO IRU VWXGHQWV KDV LQFUHDVHG DQG WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV DUH ZRUNLQJ KDUGHU WR OHDUQ 1HJDWLYH HIIHFWV 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKHUH DUH HGXFDWRUV ZKR H[SUHVV D FRQFHUQ WKDW 0&7 ZLOO KDYH QHJDWLYH HIIHFWV RQ RXU HGXFDWLRQDO V\VWHP 0DGDXV f 3LQNQH\ f DGGUHVVHG WKH

PAGE 17

QHJDWLYH LVVXHV ZKLFK VXUURXQG 0&7 KH LQFOXGHG WKH IROORZLQJ LQ KLV GLVFXVVLRQ 7KHUH LV D IHDU WKDW PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQFLHV PD\ EHFRPH PD[LPXP FRPSHWHQFLHV &ULWLFV LQIHU WKDW VXFK DGYDQFHG FRXUVHV DV &DOFXOXV &KHPLVWU\ /LWHUDWXUH DQG :RUOG +LVWRU\ PD\ HYHQWXDOO\ EH HOLPLQDWHG IURP WKH VFKRRO FXUULFXOXP 7KHUH LV D FRQFHUQ WKDW D FRQFHQWUDWHG HPSKDVLV RQ EDVLF DFDGHPLF VNLOOV PD\ UHGXFH LQWHUHVW LQ RWKHU GLVFLSOLQHV VXFK DV PXVLF DUW DQG SK\VLFDO HGXFDWLRQ 7KHUH DOVR PD\ EH D QHJDWLYH VWLJPD DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKRVH VWXGHQWV UHTXLULQJ UHPHGLDO FODVVHV $V D FRQVHTXHQFH VRPH RSSRQHQWV RI 0&7 IHDU VWXGHQWV PD\ EHFRPH GLVFRXUDJHG DW WKH SURVSHFW RI IDLOLQJ WKH 0&7 DQG FKRRVH WR GURS RXW RI VFKRRO 6RPH HGXFDWRUV IHDU WKHUH ZLOO EH DQ DEXVLYH XVH RI WKH WHVW UHVXOWV ,PSURSHU XVH RI VFRUHV FDQ VHJUHJDWH JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV FRQWULEXWH WR SRRU VHOIFRQFHSWV DQG DFW DV D EDUULHU IRU IXWXUH HPSOR\PHQW 2WKHU LQGLYLGXDOV DUH FRQFHUQHG WKDW WKH 0&7 PRYHPHQW KDV EHHQ LPSOHPHQWHG WRR TXLFNO\ DQG ZLWKRXW QHFHVVDU\ SUHFDXWLRQV 0F&OXQJ f DQ HGXFDWLRQ ODZ FRQVXOWDQW DQG VWDII DWWRUQH\ IRU WKH &HQWHU RI /DZ DQG (GXFDWLRQ ,QF KDV OLVWHG VHYHUDO OHJDO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO LVVXHV WKDW PD\ EH KD]DUGRXV WR ERWK VWXGHQWV DQG VFKRROV 7KHVH LVVXHV LQFOXGH Df SRWHQWLDO UDFLDO GLVFULPLQDWLRQ Ef UHPHGLDWLRQ FRPSRQHQW WUDFNLQJ RI PLQRULWLHVf Ff WHFKQLFDO DGHTXDF\ RI WHVW LQVWUXFWLRQDO DQG FXUULFXODU YDOLGLW\f Gf DGHTXDWH SKDVLQJLQ

PAGE 18

SHULRG Hf 0&7 DV D UHTXLUHPHQW IRU JUDGXDWLRQ DQG If QHJOLJHQFH LVVXHV 0F&OXQJ VWUHVVHV WKH IDFW WKDW WKHVH LVVXHV DUH PHUHO\ SRWHQWLDO SUREOHPV WKDW ZDUUDQW IXUWKHU LQVSHFWLRQ DQG FRQVLGHUDn WLRQ E\ SROLF\ PDNHUV ,PSDFW RI 0&7 RQ +DQGLFDSSHG ,QGLYLGXDOV 7KH KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDO LV SURWHFWHG IURP XQIDLU DQG GLVn FULPLQDWRU\ SUDFWLFHV E\ WKH )HGHUDO &RQVWLWXWLRQ YDULRXV VWDWXWHV DQG UHJXODWLRQV 7KH )RXUWHHQWK $PHQGPHQW RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ JXDUDQWHHV DOO LQGLYLGXDOV WKH HTXDO SURWHFWLRQ RI WKH ODZ 6HFWLRQ RI WKH 9RFDWLRQDO 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ $FW RI 3/ f SURKLELWV GLVFULPLQDWLRQ GHQLDO RI EHQHILWV RU WKH H[FOXVLRQ RI D KDQGLFDSSHG SHUVRQ IURP DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP RU RSSRUWXQLW\ VROHO\ RQ WKH EDVLV RI D KDQGLFDS 7KH KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDO LV DOVR SURn WHFWHG IURP XQIDLU HGXFDWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV HVSHFLDOO\ ZLWK UHJDUG WR DVVHVVPHQW E\ WKH SURYLVLRQV RI 3XEOLF /DZ 3/f 7KH (GXFDWLRQ IRU $OO +DQGLFDSSHG &KLOGUHQ $FW RI $EHVRQ t =HWWHO f 7KHVH ODZV SURYLGH D IXQGDPHQWDO EDVLV WKDW HQVXUHV WKH ULJKW RI WKH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQW WR SDUWLFLSDWH WR KLVKHU PD[LPXP DELOLW\ LQ DQ\ DQG DOO HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDPV $Q\ DSSURDFK D VWDWH PD\ DGRSW WR DFFRPPRGDWH WKH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV LQ 0&7 PXVW IXOILOO WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI H[LVWLQJ OHJLVODWLRQ 0F&OXQJ DQG 3XO LQ f VWDWH WKHUH DUH IRXU DUHDV RI OHJDO FRQFHUQ IRU WKH KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQ LQ WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI D PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ SURJUDP 7KHVH LQFOXGH Df H[HPSWLRQV

PAGE 19

Ef LQGLYLGXDOL]HG GHWHUPLQDWLRQV Ff GLIIHUHQWLDO GLSORPDV DQG VWDQGDUGV DQG Gf GLIIHUHQWLDO DVVHVVPHQW SURFHGXUHV ([HPSWLRQV IRU KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV 7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK KDQGLn FDSSHG VWXGHQWV VKRXOG EH UHTXLUHG WR SDVV RU EH KHOG H[HPSW IURPf D FRPSHWHQF\ WHVW DV D SUHUHTXLVLWH WR D KLJK VFKRRO GLSORPD LV DQ LPSRUWDQW FRQFHUQ LQ WKH DUHD RI 0&7 7KH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WDWH 'LUHFWRUV RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ f LQGLFDWHG WKDW RI WKH VWDWHV FXUUHQWO\ UHTXLULQJ FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ SULRU WR KLJK VFKRRO JUDGXDWLRQ UHTXLUH DOO RU VHOHFWHG FDWHJRULHV RI KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV WR WDNH WKH FRPSHWHQF\ WHVW 7KH UHPDLQLQJ VWDWHV KDYH QRW VSHFLILHG DQ\ SROLFLHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQW 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH FRQJUXHQW ZLWK WKH VXUYH\ ILQGLQJV RI 6PLWK DQG -HQNLQV f WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI VWDWHV KDYH QRW HVWDEOLVKHG RU ILQDOL]HG WKHLU SRVLWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQFOXVLRQ RU H[FOXVLRQ RI KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV IURP WKH 0&7 SURJUDPV (ZLQJ f UHIHUV WR FODVVLILFDWLRQV RI KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDOV VSHHFK LPSDLUHG PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG GHDI KDUG RI KHDUn LQJ YLVXDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VHULRXVO\ HPRWLRQDOO\ GLVWXUEHG RUWKR SHGLFDOO\ LPSDLUHG RWKHU KHDOWK LPSDLUHG GHDIEOLQG PXOWLKDQGLFDSSHG DQG OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHGf DQG LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH KHWHURJHQHLW\ RI WKH KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQ SURKLELWV DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH H[SHFWDWLRQ WKDW KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV EH HLWKHU V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ LQFOXGHG RU H[FOXGHG IURP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVW UHTXLUHPHQWV S f )RU H[DPSOH LW ZRXOG EH GLIILFXOW WR OHJDOO\ MXVWLI\ WKH H[FOXVLRQ RI DQ DFDGHPLFDOO\ FRPSHWHQW KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOG IURP 0&7 RQ WKH EDVLV RI SK\VLFDO

PAGE 20

FRQILQHPHQW WR D ZKHHOFKDLU DQG \HW UHDOLVWLF DQG IDLU WR H[HPSW D SURIRXQGO\ UHWDUGHG LQGLYLGXDO ,QGLYLGXDOL]HG GHWHUPLQDWLRQV ,W ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW QR XQLIRUP DSSURDFK IRU DOO KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ ZRXOG EH HTXLWDEOH ZKHQ W\SHV DQG VHYHULW\ RI KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQ DUH FRQVLGHUHG 'HQQLQJHU (ZLQJ 0F&OXQJ t 3XOOLQ f )RU H[DPSOH DQ\ DWWHPSW WR HVWDEOLVK D JHQHUDO SROLF\ WKDW ZRXOG EH HTXLWDEOH WR ERWK D PLOGO\ VSHHFK LPSDLUHG VWXGHQW DQG D VHULRXVO\ HPRWLRQDOO\ GLVWXUEHG LQGLYLn GXDO ZRXOG DSSHDU LPSRVVLEOH $V D FRQVHTXHQFH LW ZRXOG VHHP PRVW DSSURSULDWH WKDW GHFLVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ VWXGHQW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ 0&7 SURJUDPV EH PDGH RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO EDVLV $OO KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV KRZHYHU VKRXOG KDYH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH 0&7 SURJUDP LI WKH\ GHVLUH DQG DQ\ VFKRRO GLVWULFW WKDW IDLOV WR SURYLGH WKDW RSWLRQ PD\ EH LQ YLRODWLRQ RI 3/ 0F&OXQJ f 7KH SURFHVV RI LQGLYLGXDOL]HG GHWHUPLQDWLRQV DOVR SURYLGHV HGXFDWRUV ZLWK DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR EHFRPH PRUH DZDUH RI WKH ZLGH UDQJH RI DELOLW\ DQG DFKLHYHPHQW OHYHOV ZLWKLQ WKH KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQ 'LIIHUHQWLDO GLSORPDV DQG VWDQGDUGV $QRWKHU LVVXH DIIHFWLQJ WKH KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQ LV WKH DZDUGLQJ RI GLIIHUHQWLDO GLSORPDV DQG WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI GLIIHUHQWLDO VWDQGDUGV 0F&OXQJ f FKDUDFn WHUL]HV D GLIIHUHQWLDO GLSORPD DV EHLQJ GLVWLQJXLVKDEOH LQ FRORU VKDSH RU ZRUGLQJ IURP D VWDQGDUG GLSORPD 'LIIHUHQWLDO VWDQGDUGV DUH XVXDOO\ OHVV VWULQJHQW WKDQ WKH VWDQGDUGV UHTXLUHG IRU QRQKDQGL FDSSHG VWXGHQWV 0F&OXQJ DQG 3XOOLQ f DJDLQ HPSKDVL]H WKH QHHG IRU LQGLYLGXDOn L]HG GHWHUPLQDWLRQV 6FKRRO SHUVRQQHO SROLF\ PDNHUV DQG SDUHQWV QHHG

PAGE 21

WR GHFLGH ZKLFK RI WKUHH JHQHUDO DSSURDFKHV ZRXOG EH EHVW IRU HDFK KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQW 6RPH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV ZLOO KDYH QR SUREOHPV FRPSO\LQJ ZLWK VWDQGDUG SURFHGXUHV DQG REWDLQLQJ D VWDQGDUG GLSORPD 2WKHU VWXGHQWV PD\ QHHG GLIIHUHQWLDO VWDQGDUGV LQ RUGHU WR HDUQ D VWDQGDUG GLSORPD 7KLV FRXOG EH DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ XVLQJ WKH VWXGHQWnV ,QGLYLGXDOL]HG (GXFDWLRQ 3ODQ ,(3f DQG GHVLJQn LQJ D PRGLILHG FRPSHWHQF\ SURJUDP WKDW ZRXOG PHHW WKH VSHFLDO QHHGV DQG FDSDELOLWLHV RI WKH VWXGHQW 2WKHU VWXGHQWV PD\ EH VR VHYHUHO\ KDQGLFDSSHG WKDW GLIIHUHQWLDO GLSORPDV DQG GLIIHUHQWLDO VWDQGDUGV ZRXOG EH WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH DOWHUQDWLYH 7KHVH WKUHH RSWLRQV DVVXUH KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDOV WKH SURSHUW\ ULJKW RI REWDLQLQJ WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH GLSORPD 7KLV EHFRPHV FULWLFDO LQ OLJKW RI 6PLWK DQG -HQNLQVn f ZDUQLQJ WKDW LVVXDQFH RI D GLIIHUHQWLDO GLSORPD RU FHUWLILFDWH RI DWWHQGDQFH FRXOG EHFRPH D VRXUFH RI VWLJPD WR D KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDO $FFRUGLQJ WR D 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI /DERU UHSRUW D KLJK VFKRRO GLSORPD LV UHTXLUHG IRU HQWU\ LQWR YLUWXDOO\ DOO MREV 6DIHU f 'LIIHUHQWLDO DVVHVVPHQW SURFHGXUHV 7KLV ILQDO LVVXH KDV IDU UHDFKLQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV QRW RQO\ IRU WKH VXFFHVV RI WKH PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ PRYHPHQW EXW IRU EDVLF HGXFDWLRQDO SULQFLSOHV DQG OHJDO HTXDOLW\ 0DQ\ PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDOV KDYH DOPRVW E\ GHILQLWLRQ GLIILFXOW\ WDNLQJ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV 6PLWK t -HQNLQV f +RZ FDQ VFKRRO SHUVRQQHO HIIHFWLYHO\ PHDVXUH OHYHOV RI NQRZOHGJH ZKHQ WKH VWXGHQWnV UHVSRQVHV PD\ EH DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWHG E\ WKH LQVWUXn PHQW XVHG" ,W LV HVVHQWLDO WKDW HDFK VWXGHQWnV DFKLHYHPHQW EH PHDVXUHG

PAGE 22

DQG QRW WKH KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQ *HDUKHDUW t :LOOHQEHUJ 0DUVK *HDUKHDUW t *HDUKHDUW 0F&DUWK\ 6DOYLD t
PAGE 23

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n KDQGLFDSV DQG QRW WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV RI WHVWLQJ +RZHYHU IDLOXUH WR FRQVLGHU SRVVLEOH VRXUFHV RI SHUIRUPDQFH GLIIHUHQFHV RWKHU WKDQ VWXGHQW DELOLWLHVf PD\ EH D PDMRU VRXUFH RI ELDV LQ DVVHVVn PHQW 6XFK IDFWRUV DV LQDSSURSULDWH WHVW FRQVWUXFWLRQ RU LWHP VHOHFWLRQ DV ZHOO DV SUREOHPV LQ WKH JHQHUDO WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV PD\ FRQWULEXWH WR SRRU SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH H[FHSWLRQDO FKLOG DQG WKH LQDFFXUDWH DVVHVVn PHQW RI KLVKHU IXQGDPHQWDO FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH 3XUSRVH 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH HIIHFW RI SK\VLFDO WHVW FRQVWUXFWLRQ PRGLILFDWLRQV RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKLUG JUDGH PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG

PAGE 24

DQG HPRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHGf DQG QRUPDO VWXGHQWV 7KH HIIHFWV RI ILYH PRGLILFDWLRQV ZHUH PHDVXUHG ZLWKLQ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV DQG RQH JURXS RI QRQKDQGLFDSSHG OHDUQHUV 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH W\SH RI VWXGHQW DQG WHVW W\SH 6WXGHQWV ZHUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV QRUPDO OHDUQLQJ GLVn DEOHG /'f HPRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG (+f RU HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG (05f FULWHULD XVHG IRU GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI VXFK PLOGO\ KDQGLn FDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQV DV /' (+ DQG (05 DUH OLVWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ $ 7HVWV FRPSULVHG RI VWDQGDUG DQG PRGLILHG IRUPDWV ZHUH XVHG WKH PRGLILFDWLRQV LQFOXGHG Df WKH JURXSLQJ RI VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ Ef WKH DUUDQJHPHQW RI OLQH OHQJWKV LQ DQ XQMXVWLILHG PDQQHU Ff WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI H[DPSOHV DQG GLUHFWLRQV IRU HDFK QHZ VNLOO FKDQJH Gf WKH SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV WR WKH ULJKW RI HDFK IRLO DQG Hf WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH IRU HPSKDVLV 7KH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKH UDZ VFRUH LQGLFDWLQJ WKH VWXGHQWnV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH WRWDO WHVW RU VHOHFWHG LWHPV 5HODWHG 4XHVWLRQV 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH HIIHFWV RI SK\VLFDO WHVW FRQVWUXFWLRQ PRGLILFDWLRQV RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI VHOHFWHG HOHPHQn WDU\ VFKRRO DJHG FKLOGUHQ 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DGGUHVVHG :KDW HIIHFW GRHV WHVW LWHP PRGLILFDWLRQ KDYH RQ WKH WRWDO WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG DQG QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ" :KDW HIIHFW GRHV WKH JURXSLQJ RI VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ KDYH RQ WKH WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLn FDSSHG FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ"

PAGE 25

:KDW HIIHFW GR XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV KDYH RQ WKH WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ" :KDW HIIHFW GRHV WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI H[DPSOHV DQG GLUHFWLRQV IRU HDFK QHZ VNLOO FKDQJH KDYH RQ WKH WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ" :KDW HIIHFW GRHV SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV WR WKH ULJKW VLGH RI IRLOV KDYH RQ WKH WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ" :KDW HIIHFW GRHV WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH KDYH RQ WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ" /LPLWDWLRQV 7KLV VWXG\ LQFOXGHG WKLUG JUDGH PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG DQG UHJXODU FODVVURRP VWXGHQWV IURP $ODFKXD &RXQW\ DQG 2UDQJH &RXQW\ 6FKRRO 6\VWHPV LQ QRUWKFHQWUDO DQG FHQWUDO )ORULGD UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG DV OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG /'f HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG (05f DQG HPRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG (+f DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH UHJXODWLRQV RI WKH )ORULGD 6WDWH 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ VHH $SSHQGL[ $f $V D UHVXOW RI YDULDWLRQV LQ LGHQWLILn FDWLRQ FULWHULD EHWZHHQ VWDWHV WKH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ PD\ QRW EH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI RWKHU KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV WKURXJKRXW WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV /LNHZLVH HGXFDWLRQDO DQG FXOWXUDO GLIIHUHQFHV GXH WR JHRJUDSKLF IDFWRUV PD\ DOVR DIIHFW WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLYHQHVV RI ERWK KDQGLFDSSHG DQG UHJXODU FODVVURRP VWXGHQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 26

'HO PLWDWLRQV 7KH GHOLPLWDWLRQV RI WKLV VWXG\ LQFOXGHG Df WKH XVH RI WKLUG JUDGH VWXGHQWV DQG Ef WKH FRXQW\ UHJXODWLRQV DQG FULWHULD WKDW ZHUH XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ DQG FODVVLI\ WKH UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG VDPSOH RI QRUPDO DQG KDQGLFDSSHG /' (+ (05f VWXGHQWV $GGLWLRQDO GHOLPLWDWLRQV ZHUH WKDW WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH HQUROOHG LQ VHOHFWHG HOHPHQWDU\ SXEOLF VFKRROV IURP WKH FLWLHV RI *DLQHVYLOOH DQG 2UODQGR )ORULGD 7KH *DLQHVYLOOH VFKRROV LQFOXGHG 'XYDO 6WHSKHQ )RVWHU /DNH )RUHVW 3UDLULH 9LHZ 0. 5DZOLQJV $UFKHU 6KHOO DQG 0HWFDOIH HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRROV 3DUWLFLSDWLQJ VFKRROV IURP WKH FLW\ RI 2UODQGR ZHUH 3LQH +LOOV 5LGJHZRRG 3DUN +LDZDVVHH %ODQNQHU &KHURNHH )HUQ &UHHN /DNH &RPR &KLFNDVDZ (FFOHVWRQ DQG /DNH :HVWRQ 7KH FLWLHV RI *DLQHVYLOOH DQG 2UODQGR DUH ORFDWHG LQ $ODFKXD &RXQW\ DQG 2UDQJH &RXQW\ UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH VDPSOH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH VRXWKHDVWHUQ UHJLRQ RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV VSHFLILFDOO\ QRUWKFHQWUDO DQG FHQWUDO )ORULGD $ ILQDO GHOLPLWDn WLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKDW WKH WHVW ZDV D SDSHU DQG SHQFLO WDVN PHDVXULQJ D OLPLWHG VDPSOH RI EHKDYLRUV 7KHVH EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGHG WKH NQRZOHGJH RI IUDFWLRQV PHDVXUHPHQW FRLQ YDOXH SLFWXUH VHTXHQn FLQJ DOSKDEHWLFDO RUGHULQJ DQG PDWK ZRUG SUREOHPV LQ WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW UHDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ QRW HQG SURQRXQVf ZRUG RSSRVLWHV DQG IROORZLQJ GLUHFWLRQV LQ WKH EROGIDFH W\SH VXEWHVW WZR GLJLW DGGLWLRQ PDWK ZRUG SUREOHPV UHDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VSHOOLQJ LQ WKH DQVZHU EXEEOH VXEWHVW YHUWLFDO DQG KRUL]RQWDO DGGLWLRQ DQG

PAGE 27

DQG VXEWUDFWLRQ RI VLQJOH DQG WZR GLJLW QXPEHUV LQ WKH KLHUDUFK\ VXEWHVW DQG UHDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ PRQH\ ZRUG SUREOHPV DQG QXPEHU ZRUG SUREOHPV LQ WKH DOWHUHG OLQH OHQJWK VXEWHVW 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV %ROGIDFH W\SH LV GDUNHQHG SULQW WKDW GUDZV DWWHQWLRQ WR LWVHOI DQG FDQ EH XVHG IRU LWHPV UHTXLULQJ DGGLWLRQDO HPSKDVLV 7KH HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG (05f VWXGHQW LV RQH ZKR LV PLOGO\ LPSDLUHG LQ LQWHOOHFWXDO DQG DGDSWLYH EHKDYLRU DQG ZKRVH GHYHORSPHQW UHIOHFWV D UHGXFHG UDWH RI OHDUQLQJ 7KH PHDVXUHG LQWHOOLJHQFH RI DQ HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG VWXGHQW JHQHUDOO\ IDOOV EHWZHHQ WZR DQG WKUHH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV EHORZ WKH PHDQ DQG WKH DVVHVVHG DGDSWLYH EHKDYLRU IDOOV EHORZ DJH DQG FXOWXUDO H[SHFWDWLRQV )ORULGD 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ f 7KH HPRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG (+f VWXGHQW LV RQH ZKR DIWHU UHFHLYn LQJ VXSSRUWLYH HGXFDWLRQDO DVVLVWDQFH DQG FRXQVHOLQJ VHUYLFHV DYDLODEOH WR DOO VWXGHQWV VWLOO H[KLELWV SHUVLVWHQW DQG FRQVLVWHQW VHYHUH EHKDYLRUDO GLVDELOLWLHV ZKLFK FRQVHTXHQWO\ GLVUXSW WKH VWXGHQWnV RZQ OHDUQLQJ SURFHVV 7KLV LV WKH VWXGHQW ZKRVH LQDELOLW\ WR DFKLHYH DGHTXDWH DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV RU VDWLVIDFWRU\ LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQn VKLSV FDQQRW EH DWWULEXWHG SULPDULO\ WR SK\VLFDO VHQVRU\ RU LQWHOOHFWXDO GHILFLWV )ORULGD 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ f 7KH OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG /'f VWXGHQW LV RQH ZKR H[KLELWV D GLVn RUGHU LQ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH EDVLF SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV LQYROYHG LQ WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RU LQ XVLQJ VSRNHQ DQG ZULWWHQ ODQJXDJH 7KHVH PD\ EH PDQLIHVWHG LQ GLVRUGHUV RI OLVWHQLQJ WKLQNLQJ UHDGLQJ

PAGE 28

WDONLQJ ZULWLQJ VSHOOLQJ RU DULWKPHWLF 7KH\ GR QRW LQFOXGH OHDUQLQJ SUREOHPV ZKLFK DUH SULPDULO\ GXH WR YLVXDO KHDULQJ RU PRWRU KDQGLFDSV WR PHQWDO UHWDUGDWLRQ WR HPRWLRQDO GLVWXUEDQFH RU WR DQ HQYLURQPHQWDO GHSULYDWLRQ )ORULGD 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ f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nV HGXFDn WLRQDO V\VWHP (DFK \HDU RYHU PLOOLRQ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV DUH DGPLQLVWHUHG WR $PHULFDnV PLOOLRQ VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ
PAGE 29

UHVSRQVH IRUPDW ,Q VXFK LQVWDQFHV WKH WHVW UHVXOWV PD\ QRW DFFXUDWHO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH FKLOGnV FRJQLWLYH SURILFLHQF\ LQ WKH YDULRXV VNLOO DUHDV ,QVWHDG WKH\ PD\ UHSUHVHQW WKH LQDELOLW\ WR KDQGOH WKH VWDQGDUG VWLPXOXVUHVSRQVH WHVWLQJ IRUPDW 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH HIIHFWV RI SK\VLFDO WHVW IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG /' (+ (05f DQG QRUPDO VWXGHQWV LQ WKH WKLUG JUDGH 7KH PRGLILFDWLRQV LQFOXGHG DOWHUDWLRQV LQ OLQH OHQJWK JURXSLQJ RI VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ DQ LQFUHDVHG UDWLR RI H[DPSOHV SHU VNLOO FKDQJH SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV DQG WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH IRU HPSKDVLV ,W ZDV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKHVH WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ GLIIHUHQWLDO SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV

PAGE 30

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 7KH IROORZLQJ OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ H[DPLQHV WKH QDWXUH DQG H[WHQW RI FXUUHQW NQRZOHGJH FRQFHUQLQJ SK\VLFDO WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV IRU QRUPDO DQG PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG /' (05 (+f SRSXODWLRQV ,W VSHFLILFDOO\ DGGUHVVHV Df SULQW Ef OLQH OHQJWK Ff WKH DUUDQJHn PHQW RI VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ Gf D SK\VLFDO OD\RXW ZRUNVSDFH FHOOV SHU SDJHf Hf DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ GLUHFWLRQV LQFUHDVHG UDWLR RI H[DPSOH SHU VNLOO FKDQJHf DQG If DQVZHU IRUPDW VHSDUDWH DQVZHU VKHHW DQVZHU EXEEOH SODFHPHQWf $ UHYLHZ RI FXUUHQW UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHD RI PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV DQG FKDUDFWHULVWLF QHHGV RI KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDOV LV DOVR LQFOXGHG %DFNJURXQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKLV UHYLHZ ZDV REWDLQHG IURP VHYHUDO VRXUFHV 7KHVH LQFOXGHG Df DQ (5,& VHDUFK Ef H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH &XUUHQW ,QGH[ RI -RXUQDOV LQ (GXFDWLRQ &,-(f DQG Ff H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH (GXFDWLRQDO ,QGH[ 7KH GHVFULSWRU XWLOL]HG IRU WKH (5,& VHDUFK ZDV WHVW FRQVWUXFWLRQ PRGLILFDWLRQV 7KH GHVFULSWRUV XVHG IRU WKH VHFRQG DQG WKLUG VRXUFHV ZHUH WHVW FRQVWUXFWLRQ WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV

PAGE 31

WHVWLQJ WKH KDQGLFDSSHG OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHV /'f HPRWLRQn DOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG (+f HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG (05f PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ UHDGLQJ DFKLHYHPHQW DQG SULQWW\SH $GGLWLRQDO VRXUFHV LQFOXGHG 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DQG WKH FDUG FDWDORJ V\VWHP LQ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD OLEUDU\ IRU WH[WERRNV RQ SULQW DQG W\SRJUDSK\f 7KH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH DUHD RI SK\VLFDO WHVW IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV VSHFLILFDOO\ GHVLJQHG IRU HOHPHQWDU\ PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ KDV UHFHLYHG OLWWOH DWWHQWLRQ E\ UHVHDUFKHUV 7KH VDPSOH SRSXODWLRQV RI VWXGLHV YDULHG LQ DJH RI VWXGHQWV HOHPHQn WDU\ VHFRQGDU\ FROOHJH DQG DGXOWf KDQGLFDS QRUPDO LQGLYLGXDOV YLVXDOO\ LPSDLUHG /' (+ (05f DQG GHJUHH RI KDQGLFDS VHYHUH PRGHUDWH DQG PLOGf 'XH WR WKLV SDXFLW\ RI UHVHDUFK PDWHULDO VSHFLILF WR DJH DQG W\SH RI HGXFDWLRQDO KDQGLFDS WKH VHOHFWLRQ FULWHULRQ IRU LQFOXVLRQ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ ZDV YHU\ EURDG $ GHFLVLRQ ZDV PDGH WR LQFOXGH DOO DFFHVVLEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WHVW FRQVWUXFWLRQ SULQFLSOHV DQG WKHLU DSSOLFDWLRQ 7KLV LQIRUPDWLRQ UHVWULFWHG WR QHLWKHU DJH QRU KDQGLFDS ZDV FROOHFWHG IURP GDWD EDVHG UHVHDUFK VXUYH\ VWXGLHV DXWKRULW\ EDVHG JRRG SUDFWLFHV DQG H[SHUW RSLQLRQ 7KHUHIRUH WKH nLWHUDWXUH IRU HDFK WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQ GRHV QRW DOZD\V DGGUHVV WKH WDUJHWHG SRSXODWLRQ RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ,Q IDFW WKH WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQ RI LQFUHDVHG UDWLR RI H[DPSOHV SHU VNLOO FKDQJH ZDV QRW HYHQ DGGUHVVHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH VWXGLHV ZLOO EH UHSRUWHG DV HLWKHU YHULILHG VXEVWDQWLDWHG E\ H[SHUW RSLQLRQ RU GDWD EDVHG UHVHDUFKf RU XQYHULILHG QRW VSHFLILFDOO\ DGGUHVVHG E\ UHVHDUFK EXW VXJJHVWHG E\ SURIHVVLRQDOVf 7KRVH PRGLILFDWLRQGV WKDW

PAGE 32

FDQ EH FDWHJRUL]HG DV YHULILHG DUH Df SULQW EROGIDFHf Ef OLQH OHQJWK Ff LWHP JURXSLQJ Gf SK\VLFDO OD\RXW Hf DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ GLUHFWLRQVf DQG If DQVZHU IRUPDW LQ ERRNOHW UHVSRQVH DQVZHU EXEEOH SODFHPHQWf 7KH RQH PRGLILFDWLRQ WKDW PXVW EH FODVVLILHG DV XQYHULILHG LV WKH LQFUHDVHG UDWLR RI H[DPSOHV SHU VNLOO FKDQJH 9HULILHG 7HVW 0RGLILFDWLRQV 3ULQW ,Q UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH SURFHVV RI UHDGLQJ SULQW LV UHJDUGHG DV D FUXFLDO HOHPHQW )RQGD 6\NHV 7LQNHU Df )RQGD f VWDWHG WKDW VXFK IDFWRUV DV VW\OH RI SULQW EODFNQHVV RI WKH LQN FRQWUDVW RI ZKLWH QRQJORVV\ SDSHU WR WKH LQN DQG DSSURSULDWH LOOXPLQDWLRQ IDFLOLWDWH UHDGLQJ 7LQNHU Ef XVHG WKHVH VDPH IHDWXUHV WR GHILQH YLVLELOLW\ +H VWDWHG WKDW YLVLELOLW\ ZDV DIIHFWHG E\ WKH FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH EULJKWQHVV RI WKH SDSHU WKH GDUNQHVV RI WKH LQN DQG WKH WKLFNQHVV RI WKH VWURNHV LQ WKH OHWWHU +H DOVR QRWHG WKDW DQ LQFUHDVH LQ WKH YLVLELOLW\ FDQ PDNH WKH W\SH DSSHDU ODUJHU $FFRUGLQJ WR 6KDZ f DQG 6\NHV f OHJLELOLW\ RI SULQW LV FRQWUROOHG E\ VXFK FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DV TXDOLW\ VL]H ZHLJKW DQG VSDFLQJ (UGPDQQ DQG 1HDO f VWDWHG WKDW OHJLELOLW\ LQFUHDVHV ZLWK WKH KHLJKW DQG UHVROXWLRQ RI WKH FKDUDFWHU 7KH SUHVHQFH RI VHULIV WKH KRUL]RQWDO DQG YHUWLFDO VWURNHV WKDW DUH DWWDFKHG WR WKH HQG SRLQWV RI EDVLF OHWWHUVf DQG VLPSOLFLW\ DOVR FRQWULEXWH WR WKLV OHJLELOLW\ RI SULQW 7LQNHU Df

PAGE 33

7KHUH DSSHDUV WR EH D JHQHUDO FRQVHQVXV DPRQJ H[SHUWV UHJDUGLQJ WKH XVH RI XSSHU DQG ORZHU FDVH OHWWHUV LWDOLFV DQG EROGIDFH W\SH 7LQNHU Df DQG &UDLJ f UHFRPPHQGHG WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH DV DQ HIIHFWLYH PHDQV IRU HPSKDVL]LQJ DQ LPSRUWDQW FRQFHSW RU ZRUG RU IRU GUDZLQJ DWWHQWLRQ WR D FULWLFDO HOHPHQW 7KH XVH RI ORZHU FDVH OHWWHUV LV SUHIHUUHG WR XSSHU FDVH RU LWDOLFV VLQFH ORZHU FDVH FDQ EH UHDG PRUH TXLFNO\ 7LQNHU t 3DWWHUVRQ 7LQNHU Df DQG PRUH HDVLO\ &UDLJ f &UDLJ f FRQWHQGHG WKDW ORZHUn FDVH OHWWHUV IDFLOLWDWH WKH SURFHVV RI UHDGLQJ GXH WR D SUHVHQFH RI JUHDWHU YLVXDO FXHV 7KLV FDQ EH VHHQ E\ VSOLWWLQJ D ZRUG KRUL]RQWDOO\ 7KH UHDGHU UHFHLYHV PRUH GHFRGLQJ FOXHV IURP ORZHUFDVH FWLDOUn WKDQ XSSHUFDVH &+$,5 6DZ\HU f VXJJHVWHG WKDW ZRUGV QRW EH W\SHG LQ DOO FDSLWDO XSSHUFDVHf OHWWHUV DQG 7LQNHU Df UHSRUWHG WKDW FDSLWDOV DQG LWDOLFV UHWDUGHG WKH VSHHG RI UHDGLQJ /LQH /HQJWK $FFRUGLQJ WR 7LQNHU Ef WKH QRUPDO OLQH ZLGWK LV FKDUDFWHUV DOWKRXJK WKLV PD\ YDU\ XS WR GHSHQGLQJ RQ GLIIHUHQW VL]HV RI W\SH &UDLJ f /LQH OHQJWK KDV DQ LPSRUWDQW HIIHFW RQ UHDGLQJ /LQHV WKDW DUH WRR VKRUW FDQ EUHDN XS SKUDVHV DQG ORJLFDO WKRXJKW XQLWV &UDLJ f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKHUH DUH DOVR GLVDGYDQWDJHV WR OLQHV WKDW DUH WRR ORQJ ([FHVVLYHO\ ORQJ OLQHV PDNH LW GLIILFXOW WR ILQG WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH QH[W OLQH 7LQNHU Df DQG ORQJ OLQHV FDQ DOVR FDXVH IDWLJXH &UDLJ f /LQHV RI SULQW DUH XVXDOO\ VHW E\ SULQWHUV WR JLYH D MXVWLILHG RU HYHQ DSSHDUDQFH -XVWLILHG OLQHV KDYH HYHQ OHIW DQG ULJKW PDUJLQV

PAGE 34

DQG DUH XVXDOO\ IRXQG LQ QHZVSDSHUV PDJD]LQHV DQG ERRNV 3DUDn JUDSKV ZLWK MXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV DSSUR[LPDWH D ER[ ZLWK SDUDOOHO VLGHV 7KH SULQWHUV DUH DEOH WR FUHDWH WKLV HYHQ DSSHDUDQFH E\ DOWHULQJ WKH VSDFLQJ EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDO OHWWHUV DQG ZRUGV &UDLJ f KRZHYHU VXJJHVWHG WKDW HTXDO VSDFLQJ EHWZHHQ ZRUGV FUHDWHV JUHDWHU OHJLELOLW\ 7KH HTXDO VSDFLQJ FUHDWHV XQHYHQ RU XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV DQG OLQHV WDNH RQ D MDJJHG HIIHFW 7KH MDJJHG HIIHFW KDV WH[WXUH DGGV YLVXDO LQWHUHVW WR WKH SDJH FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH HDVH RI UHDGLQJ DQG UHGXFHV WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI ORFDWLQJ WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH QH[W OLQH &UDLJ f 5HVXOWV RI D VWXG\ E\ 5HLFKDUG DQG 5HLG f LQGLFDWHG WKDW UHWDUGHG FKLOGUHQ GHPRQVWUDWHG LQFUHDVHG UHDGLQJ UDWHV DQG LPSURYHG UHDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQn VLRQ VFRUHV RQ UHDGLQJ SDVVDJHV WKDW ZHUH VHW LQ XQMXVWLILHG OLQHV ZLWK GRXEOH VSDFHG OHDGLQJ LH VSDFH EHWZHHQ OLQHV RI SULQWf /HDGLQJ LV WKH DPRXQW RI ZKLWH VSDFH EHWZHHQ OLQHV RI SULQW ,W LV DQRWKHU IDFWRU WKDW FDQ DOWHU WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI OLQH OHQJWKV 7RR OLWWOH RU WRR PXFK VSDFLQJ FDQ EH GLVWUDFWLQJ &UDLJ f VWDWHG WKDW WRR PXFK OHDGLQJ FDQ FDXVH D GULIWLQJ HIIHFW DQG WKH W\SH WDNHV RQ D JUD\LVK FDVW DV RSSRVHG WR WUXH EODFNf +H UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW OHDGn LQJ EHWZHHQ OLQHV EH JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH VSDFLQJ EHWZHHQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZRUGV $SSURSULDWH OHDGLQJ LV DOVR UHVSRQVLEOH IRU LQFUHDVLQJ YLVLELOLW\ RQ D SDJH ZKHQ WKH SDSHU LV ORZ LQ EULJKWQHVV RU WKH UHDGLQJ OLJKW LV SRRU 7LQNHU Ef $OWKRXJK &UDLJ f VWDWHG WKDW SURSHU OHDGLQJ LV PRUH D PDWWHU RI YLVXDO MXGJPHQW WKDQ VSHFLILF PDWKHPDWLFDO GHWHUPLQDWLRQV RI VSDFH

PAGE 35

WKHUH DUH FHUWDLQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW GR UHJXODWH WKH DPRXQW RI OHDGLQJ QHFHVVDU\ +H IHOW WKDW PRUH OHDGLQJ ZDV QHHGHG ZLWK Df OHWWHUV RI ODUJH ; KHLJKWV Ef OHWWHUV RI VWURQJ YHUWLFDO VWUHVV Ff VDQV VHULI W\SH DV RSSRVHG WR VHULI W\SH Gf ORQJHU OLQHV DQG Hf YHU\ VPDOO W\SH ,WHP *URXSLQJ 7KHUH LV VRPH FRQWURYHUV\ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LQYROYLQJ QRUPDO LQGLYLGXDOVf ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKH JURXSLQJ RI OLNH LWHPV DQG WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI VXFK LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ %UHQQHU f 6LURWQLN DQG :HOOLQJWRQ f DQG 0DUVR f VXJJHVWHG WKDW VFUDPEOLQJ WHVW LWHPV KDG QR HIIHFW RQ WKH WHVW VFRUHV IRU QRUPDO LQGLYLGXDOV WK JUDGH WR FROOHJHf +ROOLGD\ DQG 3DUWULGJH f DQG )ODXJKHU 0HOWRQ DQG 0H\HUV f KRZHYHU VXJJHVWHG WKDW KLHUDUFKLHV RI LWHPV SURJUHVVLQJ IURP HDV\ WR KDUG UDWKHU WKDQ D UDQGRP RU GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHUf GLG LPSURYH WHVW VFRUHV IRU QRUPDO VHFRQG JUDGHUV DQG KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV $ VWXG\ RI QRUPDO KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV E\ )ODXJKHU 0HOWRQ DQG 0H\HUV f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

PAGE 36

2UGHULQJ WKH LWHPV IURP HDVLHVW WR PRVW GLIILFXOW ZRXOG DOVR DSSHDU WR KHOS WKH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQW :KHQ LWHPV DUH VFUDPEOHG WKHUH LV QR DVVXUDQFH DQ (05 RU (+ FKLOG ZLOO FRQWLQXH SDVW WKH GLIILFXOW LWHP XQWLO KH UHDFKHV DQRWKHU LWHP KH NQRZV (GXFDWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV PD\ EHFRPH IUXVWUDWHG ZLWK D GLIILFXOW SUREOHP DQG DEDQGRQ WKH UHVW RI WKH LWHPV %\ FRPELQLQJ WKHVH WZR IHDWXUHV JURXSLQJ DQG RUGHULQJ D WHVW FRXOG EH ORJLFDO DQG UHLQIRUFLQJ WR D KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOG 7KH GLVFRXUDJHPHQW D FKLOG PD\ IHHO DV KH UHDFKHV WKH OLPLW RI KLV DELOLW\ RQ RQH VNLOO FRXOG EH FRXQWHUEDODQFHG E\ VXFFHVVIXO DFFRPSOLVKPHQW RQ WKH HDVLHU WDVNV RI WKH QH[W VNLOO 3K\VLFDO /D\RXW &HOOV SHU SDJH 6LQFH HGXFDWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ RIWHQ GHPRQVWUDWH YLVXDO SHUFHSWLRQ SUREOHPV HGXFDWLRQDO PDWHULDOV VKRXOG RSWLPDOO\ EH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ OLPLWHG DQG ZHOO RUJDQL]HG VWLPXOXV ,Q RUGHU WR FUHDWH D FOHDQ DQG XQFOXWWHUHG SDJH WHVW SUREOHPV PD\ EH HQFORVHG ZLWKLQ D FHOO RU ER[ &HOOV FDQ EH FUHDWHG E\ H[WHQGLQJ KRUL]RQWDO OLQHV DFURVV WKH SDJH DQG E\ SODFLQJ RQH YHUWLFDO OLQH GRZQ WKH FHQWHU RI HDFK SDJH 7KHVH OLQHV FUHDWH D ZHOO EDODQFHG SDJH WKDW UHVHPEOHV 6DPSOH )LJXUH f &HOOV LQ RWKHU WHVWV DUH LQFRQVLVWHQW LQ VL]H GXH WR UDQGRPO\ SODFHG KRUL]RQWDO OLQHV )RU H[DPSOH VRPH WHVW SDJHV PD\ UHVHPEOH 6DPSOH )LJXUH f 6XFK DQ LPEDODQFHG SDJH PD\ EH GLVWUDFWLQJ DQG SURPRWH FRQIXVLRQ IRU D KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOG ,Q *UHHQEHUJnV f VWXG\ ZLWK KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV LW ZDV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW HDFK SDJH FRQVLVW RI D PD[LPXP RI VL[ FHOOV KRZHYHU WKH UHVXOWV RI KHU VWXG\ GLG QRW SURYH WKDW WKLV QXPEHU ZDV FULWLFDO 5HVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD LV REYLRXVO\ OLPLWHG

PAGE 37

6DPSOH :HOO %DODQFHG 3DJH 6DPSOH ,PEDODQFHG 3DJH )LJXUH

PAGE 38

:RUNVSDFH 7KHUH LV DOVR OLPLWHG UHVHDUFK DYDLODEOH RQ WKLV WRSLF 3URYLVLRQ RI ZRUNVSDFH IRU PDWK DQG UHDGLQJ ZRUG SUREOHPVf ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ D VWXG\ E\ 0DMRUV DQG 0LFKDHO f 7KHLU UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWHG WKDW FKLOGUHQ LQ VHYHQWK JUDGH VFRUHG KLJKHU RQ WHVWV WKDW SURYLGHG ZRUNVSDFH +DQGLFDSSHG OHDUQHUV SURYLGHG ZLWK ZRUNVSDFH PD\ V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DQG ORJLFDOO\ ZRUN PDWK DQG UHDGLQJ ZRUG SUREOHPV RXW UDWKHU WKDQ JXHVVLQJ WKH DQVZHU 7KH VXFFHVV RI WKH ZRUNVSDFH PRGLILFDWLRQ ZRXOG EH FORVHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH WHDFKHUn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nV FRJQLWLYH DELOLW\ DQG QRW RI KLV DELOLW\ WR UHVSRQG WR WKH WHVW IRUPDW ,Q 0HZ -HUVH\ %DVLF 6NLOO 7HVWV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DUH SHUPLWWHG WR UHSHDW UHZRUG DQG FODULI\ GLUHFWLRQV DQG H[DPSOHV IRU KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ *UHHQEHUJ f 7KLV DVVXUHV WKDW WKH FKLOGUHQ XQGHUVWDQG

PAGE 39

WKH WDVN DQG DUH QRW DWWHPSWLQJ DQ\ WDVN WKDW LV XQFOHDU ,Q DQ DWWHPSW WR PHDVXUH VNLOOV DQG QRW WKH DELOLW\ WR UHDG SURFHGXUHV LQ 1HZ
PAGE 40

LQ WKHLU ERRNOHWV RQ D UDWLR RI f WKDQ RQ D VHSDUDWH DQVZHU VKHHW *DIIQH\ DQG 0DJXLUH f VWDWHG WKDW VHSDUDWH DQVZHU VKHHWV ZHUH LQYDOLG IRU XVH ZLWK QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ EHORZ ILIWK JUDGH 2WKHU UHVXOWV VXSSRUWLQJ WKH XVH RI GLUHFW UHVSRQVH LQ WKH WHVW ERRNOHW ZHUH VWDWHG E\ &DVKHQ DQG 5DPVH\HU f IRU QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ LQ JUDGHV %HFN f ZLWK QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ LQ JUDGHV 0DMRUV DQG 0LFKDHO f IRU QRUPDO VHYHQWK DQG HLJKWK JUDGHUV &ODUN f IRU VORZ OHDUQHUV DQG *UHHQEHUJ f IRU KDQGLFDSSHG (+ /' (05f IRXUWK JUDGHUV 3ODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV 6LQFH WKH OLWHUDWXUH DSSHDUHG WR VXSSRUW WKH SURFHGXUH RI PDUNLQJ DQVZHUV ZLWKLQ LQGLYLGXDO WHVW ERRNOHWV VWXGLHV WKDW SHUWDLQHG WR WKH PRVW HIIHFWLYH SODFHPHQW RI WKH DQVZHU EXEEOHV ZHUH RI LQWHUHVW 2QO\ RQH UHSRUW ZDV DYDLODEOH RQ WKH SK\VLFDO DUUDQJHPHQW RI DQVZHUV +DUWOH\ 'DYLHV DQG %XUQKLOO f FRPSDUHG IRXU DQVZHU IRUPV WKDW YDULHG LQ WKH SODFHPHQW RI WKH EXEEOHV WR WKH OHIW RU ULJKW RI WKH DQVZHUV 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW QRUPDO \HDU ROG FKLOGUHQ GHPRQVWUDWHG QR VLJQLILFDQW SUHIHUHQFH IRU DQ\ SDUWLFXODU SODFHPHQW 1R VWXGLHV ZHUH IRXQG WKDW LQYHVWLJDWHG D KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQ 7KHRUHWLFDOO\ ZKHQ DQVZHU EXEEOHV DUH SRVLWLRQHG RQ WKH OHIW WKH IROORZLQJ SHUFHSWXDO HUURUV PD\ RFFXU ZLWKLQ DQ HOHPHQWDU\ KDQGLn FDSSHG (05 (+ /'f SRSXODWLRQ Df UHYHUVDOV ZKHQ WKH FKLOG PRYHV ULJKW WR OHIWf DFURVV WKH QXPEHU WR ILOO LQ WKH EXEEOH KH PD\ UHYHUVH WKH IRLO RO WR UHDG DQVZHU EXEEOH RU Ef YLVXDO PLVPDWFKLQJ ZKHQ D FKLOG DWWHPSWV WR VKDGH LQ RQH RI WKH IRXU DQVZHU

PAGE 41

EXEEOHV SUHVHQWHG KLV ILVWILQJHUV PD\ EH FRYHULQJ WKH DQVZHUV 0RYLQJ WKH EXEEOHV WR WKH ULJKW VLGH RI WKH DQVZHU PD\ SURPRWH D OHIW WR ULJKW UHDGLQJ VHTXHQFH DQG DYRLG WKH DFFLGHQWDO PLVWDNHV WKDW RFFXU ZKLOH ILOOLQJ LQ WKH EXEEOHV 8QYHULILHG 0RGLILFDWLRQ ,QFUHDVHG ([DPSOH6NLOO 5DWLR 7KHUH DSSHDUHG WR EH QR VWXGLHV DYDLODEOH WKDW GLVFXVVHG WKH YDOXH RI H[DPSOHV RU WKHLU HIIHFW RQ FKLOGUHQnV WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH :KDW LV WKH SXUSRVH RI H[DPSOHV" 'R WKH\ IDFLOLWDWH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI GLUHFWLRQV DQG FRPSOHWLRQ RI D WDVN" +\SRWKHWLFDOO\ LW ZRXOG VHHP WKDW WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI D WHVW ZRXOG LQFUHDVH DV WKH QXPEHU RI H[DPSOHV GHFUHDVHG 7HVWV ZLWK IHZ H[DPSOHV H[DPSOHV IRU TXHVWLRQV RU VNLOO FKDQJHVf PD\ EH PHDVXULQJ D KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGnV DELOLW\ WR UHDG GLUHFWLRQV DQG UHVSRQG WR VNLOO FKDQJHV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ UDWKHU WKDQ DVVHVVLQJ KLV WUXH FRJQLn WLYH DELOLWLHV RQ WKRVH SDUWLFXODU VNLOOV ,W ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW D PRGLILHG WHVW ZKLFK LQFUHDVHG WKH UDWLR RI H[DPSOHV UHODWLYH WR WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI HDFK QHZ VNLOO FKDQJH PD\ EH D SRVLWLYH FKDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKLV WKHRU\ ZRXOG SURYLGH WKH HGXFDWLRQDOO\ KDQGLn FDSSHG FKLOG ZLWK GLUHFWLRQV DQG D VDPSOH SUREOHP SULRU WR HDFK QHZ VHULHV RI WDVNV

PAGE 42

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f OLVWHG VRPH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ WKDW PD\ LPSHGH OHDUQLQJ 7KHVH LQFOXGH Df $WWHQWLRQ GLIILFXOWLHV 6RPH FKLOGUHQ PD\ KDYH SUREOHPV FRQFHQWUDWLQJ RQ D VSHFLILF WDVN PD\ EH XQDEOH WR XVH DWWHQWLRQ VHOHFWLYHO\ RU PD\ EH RYHUVHOHFWLYH LQ LWV XVH 7KLV LQDELOLW\ PD\ UHVXOW LQ OLPLWHG WDVN EHKDYLRU RU LPSXOVLYH JXHVVLQJ Ef 3HUFHSWXDO SUREOHPV DXGLWRU\YLVXDOPRWRUf &KLOGUHQ ZLWK WKHVH SUREOHPV WHQG WR KDYH GLIILFXOW\ GLVFULPLQDWLQJ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ VLPLODU LWHPV 7KH\ PD\ DOVR IRFXV RQ WKH LUUHOHYDQW GHWDLOV RI D WDVN RU FRQFHSW Ff 6RFLDOHPRWLRQDO SUREOHPV )UHTXHQWO\ PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ GHPRQVWUDWH SRRU DWWLWXGHV WRZDUGV VFKRRO DQG DSSHDU WR EH XQPRWLYDWHG WR OHDUQ ,W EHFRPHV LQFUHDVLQJO\ GLIILFXOW IRU WKHVH FKLOGUHQ WR DWWHPSW DFDGHPLF WDVNV ZLWK HQWKXVLDVP ZKHQ WKH\ KDYH

PAGE 43

FRQWLQXDOO\ IDLOHG LQ WKH SDVW 3RRU VHOIFRQFHSWV DQG H[WUHPHO\ ORZ IUXVWUDWLRQ OHYHOV RQO\ FRPSOLFDWH DQ DOUHDG\ GLIILFXOW WDVN Gf 0HPRU\ SUREOHPV 7KHVH FKLOGUHQ RIWHQ GHPRQVWUDWH GHILFLHQFLHV LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR VWRUH DQG UHWULHYH DXGLWRU\ DQGRU YLVXDO VWLPXOXV $OWKRXJK WKH\ PD\ EH DEOH WR OHDUQ WKH WDVN LQLWLDOO\ WKH\ EHFRPH SODJXHG ZLWK WKH LQDELOLW\ WR UHFDOO WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DIWHU D SHULRG RI WLPH Hf /DQJXDJH GHILFLWV 0LOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDOV IUHTXHQWO\ GHPRQVWUDWH ZHDN RUDO DQG ZULWWHQ ODQJXDJH VNLOOV &RPSOH[ OLQJXLVWLF SDVVDJHV EHFRPH GLIILFXOW WR XQGHUVWDQG DQG WKH FKLOG VLPSO\ GRHV QRW NQRZ ZKDW LV EHLQJ DVNHG RI KLP OHW DORQH GRA LW If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f RQO\ VHYHQ VWDWHV KDYH DOUHDG\ PDGH RU DUH LQ WKH SURn FHVV RI PDNLQJ VSHFLDO DFFRPPRGDWLRQV LQ 0&7 SURFHGXUHV IRU KDQGLn FDSSHG FKLOGUHQ 7KLV LV VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH ILQGLQJ RI 6PLWK DQG -HQNLQV f WKDW ILYH RI WKH UHSRUWLQJ VWDWHV &RORUDGR )ORULGD

PAGE 44

*HRUJLD .DQVDV DQG /RXLVLDQDf KDYH LQGLFDWHG WKH IRUPDO SURYLVLRQ RI VSHFLDO WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV IRU FDWHJRULFDO JURXSV RI KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV 7KH VWDWH VXUYH\V DOVR LQGLFDWH WKDW FXUUHQW PRGLILFDWLRQV WHQG WR FRQFHQWUDWH RQ WKH VHYHUHO\ KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQV )RU H[DPSOH WKH 0&7 IRU YLVXDOO\ DQG KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG LQGLYLGXDOV KDV EHHQ PRGLILHG E\ XVLQJ EUDLOOH ODUJH VL]H SULQW DXGLR VXSSOHPHQW RU VLJQ ODQJXDJH 0F&OXQJ 0F&OXQJ t 3XOOLQ 6PLWK t -HQNLQV f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG VRPH KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQV HGXFDEOH PHQWDO UHWDUGDWLRQf KDYH UHFHLYHG QR WHVWLQJ PRGLILFDWLRQV 0F&OXQJ t 3XOOLQ f DQG WKH PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV KDYH UHFHLYHG PLQLPDO DWWHQWLRQ (GXFDWLRQ VSHFLDOLVWV LQ WKH VWDWH RI )ORULGD DUH DSSDUHQWO\ ZHOO DZDUH RI WKH SUREOHPV LQYROYHG ZLWK WHVWLQJ KDQGLFDSSHG OHDUQHUV 0F&DUWK\ f VWDWHG WKDW )ORULGD KDV WKH PRVW HODERUDWH OHJLVODWLYH UHJXODWLRQV WR GDWH 7KH VWDWXWHV SURYLGH IRU DSSURSULDWH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WHVWLQJ LQVWUXPHQWV DQG SURFHGXUHV IRU VWXGHQWV ZLWK LGHQWLILHG KDQGLFDSV RU GLVDELOLWLHV LQ RUGHU WR HQVXUH WKDW WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH WHVWLQJ UHSUHVHQW WKH VWXGHQWnV DFKLHYHPHQW UDWKHU WKDQ UHIOHFWLQJ WKH VWXGHQWnV LPSDLUHG VHQVRU\ PDQXDO VSHDNLQJ RU SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVV VNLOOV H[FHSW ZKHUH VXFK VNLOOV DUH WKH IDFWRUV WKH WHVW SXUSRUWV WR PHDVXUH )ORULGD 6WDWXWHV &KDSWHU 6HFWLRQ f $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH )ORULGD $GPLQLVWUDWLYH &RGH WKH IROORZLQJ WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ SURSRVHG IRU KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV )OH[LEOH VFKHGXOLQJ 7KH VWXGHQW PD\ EH DGPLQLVWHUHG D WHVW GXULQJ VHYHUDO EULHI VHVVLRQV VR ORQJ DV DOO WHVWLQJ LV FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH ILQDO DOORZHG WHVW GDWH VSHFLILHG E\ WKH &RPPLVVLRQHU

PAGE 45

)OH[LEOH VHWWLQJ 7KH VWXGHQW PD\ EH DGPLQLVWHUHG D WHVW LQGLYLGXDOO\ RU LQ VPDOO JURXS VHWWLQJ E\ D SURFWRU UDWKHU WKDQ LQ D FODVVURRP RU DXGLWRULXP VHWWLQJ 5HFRUGLQJ RI DQVZHUV 7KH VWXGHQW PD\ PDUN DQVZHUV LQ D WHVW ERRNOHW W\SH WKH DQVZHU E\ PDFKLQH RU LQGLFDWH WKH VHOHFWHG DQVZHUV WR D WHVW SURFWRU 7KH SURFWRU PD\ WKHQ WUDQVFULEH WKH VWXGHQWnV UHVSRQVHV RQWR D PDFKLQH VFRUHDEOH DQVZHU VKHHW 0HFKDQLFDO DLGV 7KH VWXGHQW PD\ XVH D PDJQLI\LQJ GHYLFH D SRLQWHU D QRQFDOL EUDWHG UXOH RU WHPSODWH RU RWKHU VLPLODU GHYLFHV WR DVVLVW LQ PDLQn WDLQLQJ YLVXDO DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH WHVW ERRNOHW 5HYLVHG IRUPDW 7KH WHVW PD\ EH SUHVHQWHG WR WKH VWXGHQW XVLQJ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH IROORZLQJ WHFKQLTXHV Df YLVXDO UHDGLQJf§UHJXODU RU HQODUJHG SULQW Ef WDFWLOH UHDGLQJf§EUDLOOH FRGH RU WHFKQRORJ\ WR DOORZ RSWLFDO WDFWLOH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ WHVW LWHPV ZKLFK KDYH QR UHDO ZRUOG DSSOLFDn WLRQV IRU WKH EOLQG SHUVRQ ZLOO EH GHOHWHG IURP WKH WHVW IRUP SURYLGHG E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW Ff WKH PDWKHPDWLFV DQG ZULWLQJ SRUWLRQV PD\ EH SUHVHQWHG LQ VLJQ ODQJXDJH DOO GLUHFWLRQV PD\ DOVR EH SUHVHQWHG LQ VLJQ ODQJXDJH DQG WKH UHDGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WKH WHVW PXVW EH UHDG E\ YLVXDO RU WDFWLOH PHDQV Gf DXGLWRU\ SUHVHQWDWLRQf§DQ DXGLRWDSHG YHUVLRQ RI WKH PDWKHn PDWLFV DQG ZULWLQJ SRUWLRQV RI WKH WHVW LQ D IRUP SURYLGHG E\ WKH

PAGE 46

'HSDUWPHQW PD\ EH SUHVHQWHG WKH WHVW DGPLQLVWUDWRU PD\ UHDG D VFULSW YHUVLRQ RI WKH WHVW WR WKH VWXGHQW KRZHYHU WKH UHDGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WKH WHVW PXVW EH UHDG E\ YLVXDO RU WDFWLOH PHDQV 3URSRVHG 6WDWH %RDUG 5XOH $ 6WDWH RI )ORULGD f $V SURJUHVVLYH DV WKH )ORULGD PRGLILFDWLRQV PD\ EH LQ FRPSDULn VRQ ZLWK WKRVH RI RWKHU VWDWHV WKH\ PD\ EH VRPHZKDW PLVOHDGLQJ 7KH FXUUHQW HPSKDVLV DSSHDUV WR EH RQ WKH PRUH JHQHUDO SURFHGXUDO PRGn LILFDWLRQV LH ZKHUH DQG ZKHQ RI WHVWLQJf WKDQ RQ WKH DFWXDO FRQn VWUXFWLRQ RI WKH WHVW $OWKRXJK WKHVH PRGLILFDWLRQV PD\ EH EHQHILFLDO LW ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQV PD\ UHTXLUH DGGLWLRQDO WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV LQYROYLQJ WHVW GHVLJQ DQG SK\VLFDO IRUPDWWLQJ LH LVVXHV GHDOLQJ ZLWK SULQW FRORU VSDFLQJ FRQVLVWHQF\ RU UHDOLVPf 7KHUH LV OLWWOH UHVHDUFK GDWD DYDLODEOH LQ WKH DUHD RI VSHFLILF WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV RQ WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI KDQGLFDSSHG OHDUQHUV $OWKRXJK PDQ\ HGXFDWRUV HVSRXVH WKH OHJDO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO QHHG IRU VXFK PRGLILFDWLRQV 'HQQLQJHU .DOX]Q\ 0F&DUWK\ 0F&OXQJ t 3XOO LQ 6PLWK t -HQNLQV f WKHUH KDYH EHHQ RQO\ WKUHH NQRZQ VWXGLHV XVLQJ PRGLILHG IRUPDWV IRU VWDWH DVVHVVPHQW WHVWV 6WDWH 5HVHDUFK 6WXGLHV 1HZ -HUVH\ $ SURMHFW LQ 1HZ -HUVH\ XQGHU WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI /\GLD *UHHQEHUJ &RRUGLQDWRU RI 6WDWH 7HVWLQJ 3URJUDP 1HZ -HUVH\ 6WDWH 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ f FRPSDUHG JURXS SHUIRUPDQFHV RI VSHFLDO FKLOGUHQ RQ PRGLILHG VWDWH DVVHVVPHQW WHVWV 7KH 1HZ -HUVH\ 0LQLPXP %DVLF 6NLOOV 7HVW ZDV ILHOG WHVWHG ZLWK IRXUWK VHYHQWK WHQWK DQG

PAGE 47

WZHOIWK JUDGH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV DVVHVVLQJ UHDGLQJ DQG PDWK VNLOOV 7KH DUHDV RI KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQV LQFOXGHG FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ LPSDLUHG PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG HPRWLRQDOO\ GLVWXUEHG RUWKR SHGLFDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKURQLFDOO\ LOO SHUFHSWXDOO\ LPSDLUHG QHXURORJLFDOO\ LPSDLUHG PXOWLSO\ KDQGLFDSSHG DQG VRFLDOO\ PDOn DGMXVWHG ,Q FRQWUDVW ZLWK WKHLU SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW WKH VWXGHQWV LQ JUDGHV DQG KDG KLJKHU VFRUHV RQ WKH UHYLVHG UHDGLQJ WHVW 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH UHYLVHG DQG VWDQGDUG PDWK VXEWHVWV DW DQ\ JUDGH OHYHO (YHQ ZLWK WKH QRWHG UHDGLQJ VFRUH LPSURYHPHQW KRZHYHU WKH KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQ VWLOO VFRUHG EHORZ WKH QRUPDO JURXS RI VWXGHQWV %DVHG RQ WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH ILHOG WHVW WKH IROORZLQJ PRGLILFDn WLRQV DSSHDUHG WR KDYH WKH JUHDWHVW LPSDFW LQ WKH VWXG\ DFFRUGLQJ WR *UHHQEHUJ f 7KH SULQW ZDV HQODUJHG 7LPH OLPLWV ZHUH H[WHQGHG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ WZLFH WKH QRUPDO DPRXQW RI WLPH DOORWWHGf 7KH WHDFKHU ZDV DVNHG QRW WR PHQWLRQ DQ\ WLPH OLPLW 3UDFWLFH WHVWV ZHUH GHYHORSHG IRU WKH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV DW WKH IRXU JUDGH OHYHOV 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV ZDV WR DFTXDLQW WKH VWXGHQWV ZLWK WHVW WDNLQJ WHFKQLTXHV ,W ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG RQH WR WZR ZHHNV EHIRUH WKH DFWXDO WHVWLQJ 6WXGHQWV FRXOG EH WHVWHG DORQH RU LQ VPDOO JURXSV $W WKH FRQFOXVLRQ RI WKH ILHOG WHVWLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWRUV PDGH WKH IROORZLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV

PAGE 48

D 7UDQVIHUULQJ DQVZHUV IURP WKH WHVW ERRNOHW WR WKH DQVZHU VKHHW FDXVHG FRQIXVLRQ DQG DQ[LHW\ DQG WKH VWXGHQWV ORVW WKHLU SODFHV 6XJJHVWLRQV ZHUH PDGH WR KDYH WKH VWXGHQWV PDUN WKH DQVZHUV LQ WKH WHVW ERRNOHWV RU UHVSRQG RUDOO\ E 7KH ZRUGLQJ RI GLUHFWLRQV VKRXOG EH VLPSOLILHG $GPLQLVWUDn WRUV VKRXOG EH DEOH WR SDUDSKUDVH LQVWUXFWLRQV 'LUHFWLRQV VKRXOG EH UHSHDWHG RU H[DPSOHV UHH[SODLQHG LI WKH VWXGHQW GRHV QRW XQGHUVWDQG F 'LUHFWLRQV VKRXOG EH UHDG DORXG WR HQVXUH HDFK VWXGHQW XQGHUVWDQGV WKH WDVN G 0DUNHUV ZRXOG KHOS DOOHYLDWH WKH SUREOHP RI VWXGHQWV ORVLQJ WKHLU SODFHV ,W ZDV DOVR UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW VHYHUDO YDULDEOHV EH FRQVLGHUHG ZKHQ GHWHUPLQLQJ D VWXGHQWn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f %DVHG RQ WKH 1HZ -HUVH\ VWXG\ D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG RSLQLRQV RI WHDFKHUV DQG FRQVXOWDQWV WKURXJKRXW WKH VWDWH RI )ORULGD 3HUH] FRQFOXGHG WKHUH ZHUH ILYH PDMRU DUHDV WKDW

PAGE 49

UHTXLUHG PRGLILFDWLRQ 7KH\ FRQVLVWHG RI Df FOHDU SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI GLUHFWLRQV DQG DGGLWLRQ RI VXSSOHPHQWDO GLUHFWLRQV DQG VDPSOH LWHPV Ef YDULRXV DOWHUQDWLYHV IRU LQGLFDWLQJ UHVSRQVHV LH PDUNLQJ DQVZHUV LQ WKH WHVW ERRNOHW RU JLYLQJ DQVZHUV RUDOO\f Ff DFFHVV WR DQ DXGLR SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI VRPH LWHPV Gf FOHDU SULQW IRUPDW DQG SULQW VL]H DQG Hf DGHTXDWH VSDFLQJ WKDW ZRXOG IDFLOLWDWH SURFHVVLQJ RI WKH WDVN 2Q WKH EDVLV RI WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ 3HUH] f SODFHG WKH PDMRU HPSKDVLV RI )ORULGDnV PRGLILHG WHVW RQ WKH VWLPXOXVUHVSRQVH PRGH 8VLQJ OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG /'f HOHYHQWK JUDGHUV IURP WKH 'DGH &RXQW\ DUHD 3HUH] DGPLQLVWHUHG D PRGLILHG DVVHVVPHQW WHVW ZLWK WKH IROORZn LQJ FKDQJHV 2QH JURXS RI VWXGHQWV WRRN WKH WHVW DXJPHQWHG ZLWK DXGLR VXSSRUW $QRWKHU JURXS RI VWXGHQWV WRRN D ODUJH SULQW SWf YHUVLRQ RI WKH WHVW $ WKLUG JURXS WRRN WKH VWDQGDUG VL]HG SULQW WHVW $OO VWXGHQWV KDG XQOLPLWHG WLPH IRU UHVSRQGLQJ WR WHVW LWHUQV 7HPSODWHV RU PDUNHUV [ ZKLWHf ZHUH DYDLODEOH IRU DOO VWXGHQWV WR XVH $OO VWXGHQWV KDG WKH RSWLRQ RI UHVSRQGLQJ WR D WHVW LWHP E\ FLUFOLQJ RU XQGHUOLQLQJ Df WKH HQWLUH LWHP RU Ef WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ OHWWHU LQ WKH WHVW ERRNOHW 5HVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH ODUJH SULQW SUHVHQWDWLRQ ZDV VXSHULRU WR WKH UHJXODU SULQW IRUPDW LQ ILYH RI HLJKW VNLOOV

PAGE 50

WHVWHG /DUJH SULQW DOVR VKRZHG LPSURYHG VFRUHV ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR DXGLR VXSSRUW LQ IRXU RI HLJKW VNLOOV 7KHUH ZDV QR VNLOO ZKHUH UHJXODU SULQW RU DXGLR VXSSRUW ZDV SUHIHUUHG WR ODUJH SULQW 7R DFFRPPRGDWH WKH ODUJH SULQW KRZHYHU WKH VL]H RI WKH ERRNOHWV ZDV DOVR HQODUJHG *ULVH f QRWHG WKDW WKH ROGHU VWXGHQWV H[SUHVVHG WKHLU GLVOLNH DV WKH ERRNOHW VL]H ZDV DZNZDUG WR KDQGOH DQG LW WHQGHG WR GUDZ DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH GLVDELOLW\ 6RPH VWXGHQWV UHSRUWHG FRQIXVLRQ ZLWK WKH DXGLR VXSSRUW SUHVHQWDn WLRQ RI WKH WHVW 7KH\ IRXQG LW GLIILFXOW WR FRSH ZLWK WKH FRPELQHG DXGLWRU\ DQG YLVXDO VWLPXOLn 7KH PDUNHUV SURYLGHG LQ WKH VWXG\ ZHUH QRW XVHG E\ DQ\ RI WKH VHFRQGDU\ VWXGHQWV DOWKRXJK VRPH ZHUH VHHQ XVLQJ WKHLU SHQFLOV WR PDUN WKHLU SODFH )LQDOO\ LW GLG QRW DSSHDU WR EH SRVVLEOH WR XVH WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG ,(3 GDWD RI LQGLYLGXDO /' VWXGHQWV WR SUHGLFW PD[LPXP SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WHVWV ZLWK VSHFLILF PRGLILFDWLRQV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 5HVHDUFK 7KH PRVW FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ %HDWWLH DQG $OJR]]LQH f DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD $Q DQDO\VLV RI WKH 6WDWH 6WXGHQW $VVHVVPHQW 7HVW3DUW 66$7,f JUDGH DQG f DQG D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH LQGLFDWHG WKDW VHYHUDO JHQHUDO SK\VLFDO IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV FRXOG EH LPSOHPHQWHG DV SRWHQWLDO DLGV WR PLOGO\ KDQGLn FDSSHG VWXGHQWV 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH IROORZLQJ FKDQJHV ZHUH PDGH LQ WKH VWDQGDUG IRUPDW WR FUHDWH D PRGLILHG WHVW 7KH RUGHU RI VHOHFWHG LWHPV ZDV FKDQJHG WR UHIOHFW D KLHU DUFKLDO SURJUHVVLRQ RI VNLOOV ZKHQHYHU SRVVLEOH

PAGE 51

$OO PXOWLSOH FKRLFH DQVZHU RSWLRQV ZHUH SODFHG LQ D YHUWLFDO IRUPDW ZLWK VFRULQJ EXEEOHV SODFHG WR WKH ULJKW RI HDFK FKRLFH 7KH VKDSH RI LQGLYLGXDO DQVZHU EXEEOHV ZDV D KRUL]RQWDO RYDO 7KLUG JUDGH WHVWV ZHUH DYDLODEOH LQ HLWKHU VWDQGDUG SULQW SW PPf RU HQODUJHG SULQW SW PPf )LIWK JUDGH WHVWV ZHUH SULQWHG LQ HQODUJHG SW PPf W\SH DQG VWDQGDUG VL]H SULQW 6HQWHQFHV IRU UHDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LWHPV ZHUH DUUDQJHG LQ DQ XQMXVWLILHG IRUPDW ZKHQ SRVVLEOH WKDW LV FRPSOHWH VHQWHQFHV ZHUH OHIW LQWDFW FUHDWLQJ XQHYHQ ULJKW KDQG PDUJLQV ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH WUDGLn WLRQDO WHVWV PDLQWDLQHG WKH MXVWLILHG IRUPDWWLQJ ZKLFK LV FKDUDFWHUn L]HG E\ HTXDO OHIW DQG ULJKW KDQG PDUJLQV 5HDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ SDVVDJHV ZHUH SODFHG LQ VKDGHG ER[HV LPPHGLDWHO\ DERYH WKH WHVW LWHPV UHODWHG WR WKHP ([DPSOHV ZHUH SURYLGHG IRU HDFK VNLOO JURXSLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO WHVW VHFWLRQV $OO H[DPSOHV ZHUH VHW DSDUW IURP WKH WHVW LWHPV E\ ER[HV 6SHFLILF ZRUGV WKDW UHTXLUHG DGGLWLRQDO HPSKDVLV ZHUH SULQWHG LQ EROGIDFH W\SH DV RSSRVHG WR XSSHUFDVH FDSLWDO OHWWHUVf LWDOLFV RU XQGHUOLQLQJ 3LFWRULDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV RI FRLQV ZHUH GLVSOD\HG ZLWK WKH KHDG RU IDFH VLGH XS 7KLV ZDV LQ FRQWUDVW WR WKH WUDGLWLRQDO WDLO VLGH XS IRUPDW 7HVW LWHPV WKDW UHTXLUHG D ORJLFDO VHTXHQFLQJ RI HYHQWV ZHUH SODFHG LQ D KRUL]RQWDO URZ RI ER[HV DV RSSRVHG WR SRVLWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH IRXU TXDGUDQWV RI D VTXDUH

PAGE 52

$UURZV ZHUH SODFHG LQ WKH ORZHU ULJKWKDQG FRUQHU RI SDJHV WR LQGLFDWH FRQWLQXLQJ VHFWLRQV RI WKH WHVW 6WRS VLJQV ZHUH SRVLWLRQHG VLPLODUO\ GHQRWLQJ DQ HQG WR HDFK VNLOO VHFWLRQ $ WRWDO RI WKLUG DQG ILIWK JUDGH OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG /'f VWXGHQWV IURP VHYHQ FRXQWLHV LQ )ORULGD SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH WKLUG DQG ILIWK JUDGH /' VWXGHQWVn SHUn IRUPDQFH RQ WKH PRGLILHG 66$7, ZDV FRPSDUDEOH WR RU EHWWHU WKDQ WKDW RQ WKH UHJXODU 66$7, IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH WHVW LWHPV HYDOXDWHG 'HWDLOHG DQDO\VLV RI VSHFLILF PRGLILFDWLRQV UHYHDOHG WKDW Df ERWK WKLUG DQG ILIWK JUDGH /' VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RQ PRGLILHG WHVW LWHPV SUHVHQWLQJ FRLQV IDFH XS Ef WKLUG JUDGH /' VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG EHWWHU RQ WKH PRGLILHG VHTXHQFLQJ VHFWLRQ WKH VNLOO ZDV QRW SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH ILIWK JUDGH WHVWf DQG Ff WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH /' VWXGHQWVn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

PAGE 53

7KH\ DOVR DJUHH WKDW ZRUGV ZULWWHQ LQ FDSLWDO OHWWHUV RU LWDOLFV VORZ GRZQ WKH UDWH RI UHDGLQJ ,Q VSLWH RI WKLV DJUHHPHQW KRZHYHU WKHUH ZHUH QR VWXGLHV DYDLODEOH WKDW HVWDEOLVK WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKHVH SULQWLQJ SURFHGXUHV ZLWK YDULRXV KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQV 7KHUH DSSHDU WR EH FRQIOLFWLQJ GDWD UHJDUGLQJ WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI HQODUJHG SULQW ZLWK KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQV $GGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK ZLWK YDULRXV KDQGLFDSSHG LQGLYLGXDOV PD\ EH ZDUUDQWHG LQ RUGHU WR PHDVXUH WKH HIIHFW RI HQODUJHG SULQW RQ WKH W\SH RI KDQGLFDS DQG WKH GLIIHUHQW DJHV RI WKH VXEMHFWV 7\SRJUDSKHUV UHFRPPHQG WKH XVH RI XQMXVWLILHG OLQHV IRU JUHDWHU OHJLELOLW\ DQG HDVH RI UHDGLQJ 7KH SUHVHQFH RI RQO\ RQH HPSLULFDO VWXG\ WR GDWH ZLWK DKQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ DOVR VXJJHVWV WKH QHHG IRU FRQWLQXHG UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHD 7KHUH DSSHDUV WR EH PXFK FRQWURYHUV\ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHJDUGLQJ WKH EHQHILWV RI JURXSLQJ VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ IURP HDV\ WR KDUG IRU QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ 7KHUH DUH QR NQRZQ VWXGLHV PHDVXULQJ WKH DELOLWLHV RI KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ ZLWK VFDWWHUHG LWHPV RU JURXSV RI LWHPV LQ QR RUGHU RI GLIILFXOW\ 7KH OLWHUDWXUH FRQWDLQV VXIILFLHQW HYLGHQFH WR ZDUUDQW WKH FRQn FOXVLRQ WKDW HOHPHQWDU\ KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQ GR SHUIRUP EHWWHU ZKHQ UHTXLUHG WR UHVSRQG GLUHFWO\ LQ WKHLU DQVZHU ERRNOHWV DV RSSRVHG WR WUDQVIHUULQJ DQVZHUV WR D VHSDUDWH DQVZHU VKHHW 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG UHVHDUFK DSSHDUV OLPLWHG LQ UHJDUG WR WKH HIIHFWV RI SK\VLFDO IRUPDWn WLQJ RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV 7KH OLWHUDWXUH GRHV QRW DGGUHVV WKH LVVXH RI LQFUHDVHG DFFXUDF\ RI KDQGLFDSSHG FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVH ZKHQ DQVZHU EXEEOHV DUH SODFHG EHIRUH DIWHU DERYH RU EHORZ WKH DQVZHU IRLO

PAGE 54

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n WLRQV DSSHDU WR EH ZDUUDQWHG IRU FRQWLQXHG UHVHDUFK 7KH\ LQFOXGH WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI EROGIDFH W\SH IRU HPSKDVLV XQMXVWLILHG IRUPDWWLQJ RI VHQWHQFHV JURXSLQJ RI VLPLODU WDVNV LQ D SURJUHVVLYH KLHUDUFK\ LQFOXn VLRQ RI H[DPSOHV WR IDFLOLWDWH WDVN WUDQVLWLRQ DQG WKH SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR IRLO 7KH HIIHFW RI WKHVH PRGLILFDWLRQV RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI VWXGHQWV ZLWK VXFK PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQV DV /' (05 DQG (+ LV RI SULPDU\ LQWHUHVW 7KH LQFOXVLRQ RI D QRUPDO JURXS RI LQGLYLGXDOV PD\ UHYHDO WKDW VSHFLILF PRGLILFDWLRQV DUH VLPSO\ JRRG WHVW FRQVWUXFn WLRQ IRUPDWWLQJ SULQFLSOHV DSSOLFDEOH DQG EHQHILFLDO WR WKH PDMRULW\ RI DYHUDJH LQGLYLGXDOV

PAGE 55

&+$37(5 ,,, 0(7+2'6 $1' 352&('85(6 &KDSWHU ,,, LQFOXGHV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH PHWKRGV DQG SURFHGXUHV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KHUH DUH WZR PDMRU VHFWLRQV LQ WKLV FKDSWHU WKH ILUVW LV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI VXEMHFWV DQG WKH VHFRQG LV D GHVFULS WLRQ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO SURFHGXUHV LQFOXGLQJ PDWHULDOV VHWWLQJ YDULDEOHV K\SRWKHVHV DQG GDWD DQDO\VLV 0HWKRG 7KH UHVHDUFK ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ $ODFKXD &RXQW\ DQG LQ WKH FLW\ RI 2UODQGR ZKLFK LV FRPSULVHG RI WKUHH FRXQWLHV 2UDQJH 6HPLQROH DQG 2VFHRODf $ODFKXD &RXQW\ LV ORFDWHG LQ QRUWK FHQWUDO )ORULGD HQFRPSDVVHV DQ DUHD RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VTXDUH PLOHV DQG KDV D SRSXODWLRQ RI 0HWURSROLWDQ 2UODQGR LV ORFDWHG LQ FHQWDO )ORULGD LV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VTXDUH PLOHV DQG KDV D SRSXODWLRQ RI )RXU FDWHJRULHV RI VWXGHQWV IURP WKH WKLUG JUDGH SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 7KHVH LQFOXGHG QRUPDO VWXGHQWV DQG WKRVH VWXGHQWV ZLWK VXFK PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQV DV OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHV /'f HPRWLRQDO KDQGLFDSV (+f DQG HGXFDEOH PHQWDO UHWDUGDWLRQ (05f &ULWHULD XVHG LQ WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI WKHVH PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSLQJ

PAGE 56

FRQGLWLRQV DUH OLVWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ $ (DFK JURXS RI VXEMHFWV /' (+ (05 QRUPDOf FRQWDLQHG VWXGHQWV IRU D WRWDO SRSXODWLRQ RI VXEMHFWV 3HUPLVVLRQ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH VWXG\ ZDV REWDLQHG IURP HDFK VWXGHQWnV SDUHQW JXDUGLDQ 3DUHQW SHUPLVVLRQ VOLSV DUH LQ $SSHQGL[ % 6HOHFWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV ZDV GRQH UDQGRPO\ ,Q $ODFKXD &RXQW\ WKHUH ZDV D OLPLWHG QXPEHU f RI GLDJQRVHG WKLUG JUDGH (05 VWXGHQWV $V D UHVXOW SULQFLSDOV RI WKRVH VFKRROV ZHUH FRQWDFWHG IRU SHUPLVVLRQ WR WHVW ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR VHOHFWLQJ WKRVH SDUWLFXODU (05 VWXGHQWV WKH WKLUG JUDGH /' DQG (+ FKLOGUHQ DQG D SURSRUWLRQDWH QXPEHU RI QRUPDO WKLUG JUDGH FKLOGUHQ LQ WKRVH VFKRROV ZHUH DOVR VHOHFWHG IRU SDUWLFLn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f 7KH DYHUDJH UHDGLQJ OHYHOV E\ FDWHJRU\ ZHUH Df QRUPDO VXEMHFWVJUDGH Ef OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG f§ JUDGH Ff HPRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG f§ JUDGH DQG Gf HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG f§ JUDGH $QDO\VLV RI WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW /' DQG (05 VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG VLPLODUO\ DV GLG (+ DQG /' VWXGHQWV 1RUPDO VWXGHQWV FRQVLVWHQWO\ SHUIRUPHG KLJKHU WKDQ DOO RWKHU JURXSV

PAGE 57

7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HYHQO\ GLVWULEXWHG [ S f DFURVV WHVW W\SHV ZLWK UHJDUG WR VH[ DQG UDFH PDOHV VWDQGDUG PRGLILHGf IHPDOHV VWDQGDUG PRGLILHGf EODFN VWDQGDUG PRGLILHGf DQG ZKLWH VWDQGDUG PRGLILHGf &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK SDVW ILQGLQJV LQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ OLWHUDWXUH KRZHYHU VH[ DQG UDFH ZHUH QRW HYHQO\ GLVWULEXWHG DFURVV FDWHJRULHV 6SHFLILF H[DPSOHV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ UDFHVH[ DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ SODFHPHQW DUH WKUHH WLPHV DV PDQ\ ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ LQ /' DV EODFN DQG DOPRVW VL[ WLPHV DV PDQ\ ER\V LQ (+ DV JLUOV $ EUHDNGRZQ RI WKH IRXU FDWHJRULHV E\ UDFH DQG VH[ LV SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH &DWHJRU\ 0HPEHUVKLS E\ 5DFH DQG 6H[ 5DFH 6H[ &DWHJRU\ %ODFN :KLWH 0DOH )HPDOH 1RUPDO bf bf bf bf /' bf bf bf bf (+ bf bf bf bf (05 bf bf bf bf [ [ e e

PAGE 58

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f DQ LQFRQVLVWHQW PHWKRG RI GHQRWLQJ HPSKDVLV f SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV WR WKH OHIW RI WKH IRLOV f D SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI VNLOOV LQ D PL[HG KLHUDUFK\ RI GLIILFXOW\ f DQG MXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV f $ VDPSOH WHVW LQ VWDQGDUG IRUPDW LV LQFOXGHG LQ $SSHQGL[ &

PAGE 59

7DEOH ,QWHUQDO &RQVLVWHQF\ (VWLPDWHV IRU 6WDQGDUG DQG 0RGLILHG 7HVWV 6XEWHVWV 7HVW 9HUVLRQ &DWHJRU\ 7RWDO ([DPSOH %ROGIDFH $QVZHU %XEEOHV +LHUDUFK\ /LQH /HQJ 6WDQGDUG 1RUPDO /' (+ (05 0RGLILHG 1RUPDO /' (+ (05 7KH PRGLILHG WHVW DOVR FRQVLVWHG RI ILYH JURXSV RI LWHPV 7KHVH LWHPV KRZHYHU ZHUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI H[DPSOHV DQG WHDFKHU H[SODQDWLRQ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI HDFK QHZ VNLOO VHFWLRQ f WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH WR GHQRWH HPSKDVLV f SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV WR WKH ULJKW RI WKH DQVZHU IRLOV f JURXSLQJ RI VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ f DQG XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWK f $ VDPSOH PRGLILHG WHVW LV LQn FOXGHG LQ $SSHQGL[ '

PAGE 60

6HWWLQJ 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH UHPRYHG IURP WKHLU UHJXODU FODVVURRPV DQG WDNHQ WR RQH URRP ZKHUH WKH VWDQGDUG DQG PRGLILHG WHVWV ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG WR D JURXS RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VWXGHQWV %HIRUH EHJLQQLQJ WKH WHVW WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQW ZDV UHDG WR WKH VXEMHFWV 7RGD\ \RX DUH JRLQJ WR WDNH D VSHFLDO WHVW
PAGE 61

FRPSULVHG RI VWDQGDUG DQG PRGLILHG IRUPDWV ZHUH XVHG WKH PRGLILFDn WLRQV LQFOXGHG Df WKH JURXSLQJ RI VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ Ef WKH DUUDQJHPHQW RI OLQH OHQJWKV LQ DQ XQMXVWLILHG PDQQHU Ff WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI H[DPSOHV DQG GLUHFWLRQV IRU HDFK QHZ VNLOO FKDQJH Gf WKH SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV WR WKH ULJKW RI HDFK IRLO DQG Hf WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH IRU HPSKDVLV 7KH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKH UDZ VFRUH LQGLFDWLQJ WKH VWXGHQWnV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH WRWDO WHVW RU JURXS RI VHOHFWHG WHVW LWHPV (TXDO QXPEHUV RI WHVW LWHPV ZHUH LQFOXGHG IRU HDFK WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQ +\SRWKHVHV $ VHULHV RI UHODWHG K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH DGGUHVVHG 7KHVH LQFOXGHG 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ WRWDO WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI YDULRXV JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH QDWXUH RI WKH WHVW LH PRGLILHG YV VWDQGDUG IRUPf 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI YDULRXV JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV RQ VHOHFWHG LWHPV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI DQ LQFUHDVHG UDWLR RI H[DPSOHV WR VNLOO FKDQJHV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI YDULRXV JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV RQ VHOHFWHG WHVW LWHPV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI EROGIDFH W\SH 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI YDULRXV JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV RQ VHOHFWHG WHVW LWHPV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI DQVZHU EXEEOH SODFHPHQW 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI YDULRXV JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV RQ VHOHFWHG WHVW LWHPV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI LWHP JURXSLQJ

PAGE 62

7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI YDULRXV JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV RQ VHOHFWHG WHVW LWHPV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV 'DWD $QDO\VLV 7KH GDWD DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ PDQQHU 7KHUH ZDV D FRPSDULVRQ RI WHVW VFRUHV RQ WKH VWDQGDUG DQG PRGLILHG WHVW IRUP IRU HDFK RI WKH KDQGLFDSSHG /' (+ (05f DQG QRUPDO JURXSV 7ZR IDFWRU DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFH $129$f ZHUH FRPSOHWHG IRU WKH WRWDO WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUH DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ HDFK VHW RI VLPLODU LWHPV 0DLQ HIIHFWV DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH DQDO\]HG DQG VXEVHTXHQW IROORZXS DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG DV QHFHVVDU\ WKH SHUFHQW OHYHO RI FRQILn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

PAGE 63

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

PAGE 64

&+$37(5 ,9 5(68/76 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SRVVLEOH HIIHFWV RI ILYH SK\VLFDO WHVW IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG DQG QRUPDO WKLUG JUDGH VWXGHQWV 7KH PRGLILFDn WLRQV LQFOXGHG DQ LQFUHDVHG UDWLR RI H[DPSOHV SHU VNLOO FKDQJH WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH IRU HPSKDVLV WKH SODFHPHQW RI DQVZHU EXEEOHV WKH JURXSLQJ RI VLPLODU LWHPV LQ D KLHUDUFK\ RI SURJUHVVLYH GLIILn FXOW\ DQG XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV (LJKW\ VWXGHQWV IURP $ODFKXD &RXQW\ DQG PHWURSROLWDQ 2UODQGR VFKRROV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 7KHUH ZHUH VWXGHQWV LQ HDFK RI IRXU FDWHJRULHV /' (+ (05 QRUPDOf 7KH VWXGHQWV ZLWKLQ HDFK FDWHJRU\ ZHUH UDQGRPO\ PDWFKHG DFFRUGLQJ WR UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ DQG UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR HLWKHU VWDQGDUG RU PRGLILHG WHVW IRUPV 'DWD ZHUH DQDO\]HG XVLQJ WZR IDFWRU DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFH $129$f IRU WKH WRWDO WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUH DQG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ HDFK VHW RI VLPLODU LWHPV VXEWHVWV f 6LJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV IRU FDWHJRU\ ZHUH IXUWKHU HYDOXDWHG XVLQJ IROORZXS DQDO\VHV DFFRUGLQJ WR 7XNH\nV +RQHVWO\ 6LJQLILFDQW 'LIIHUHQFHV FLWHG LQ )HUJXVRQ f SURFHGXUH PDLQ HIIHFWV IRU GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHVW IRUPV ZHUH LQWHUSUHWHG DV e UDWLRV GXH WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI RQO\ WZR OHYHOV RI WKDW LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH /HYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH RI DOO WHVWV ZDV VHW DW D

PAGE 65

0HDQV VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV DQG DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH VXPPDU\ WDEOH IRU WRWDO WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 6LJQLILn FDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV DUH LQGLFDWHG IRU ERWK FDWHJRU\ DQG WHVW IRUP 6LPLODU LQIRUPDWLRQ UHODWLYH WR VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH ILYH PRGLILFDWLRQ VXEWHVWV LH H[DPSOHV EROGIDFH W\SH DQVZHU EXEEOH SODFHPHQW SURJUHVVLYH KLHUDUFK\ DQG XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKf LV SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOHV WR 7RWDO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW [ f ZDV DSSUR[Ln PDWHO\ VL[ SRLQWV KLJKHU WKDQ RQ WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW IRUP >[ f $V UHYHDOHG LQ WKH IROORZXS DQDO\VHV SHUIRUPDQFH RI (+ DQG /' VWXGHQWV ZDV VLPLODU DV ZHUH QRUPDO DQG (+ VWXGHQWV 7KH VFRUHV RI WKH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG VWXGHQWV DQG /' VWXGHQWV KRZHYHU ZHUH VLJQLILn FDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ QRUPDO VWXGHQWV :LWK UHJDUGV WR VXEWHVW VFRUHV WKHUH ZHUH QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHVW IRUP IRU IRXU RXW RI ILYH PRGLILFDWLRQ VXEWHVWV WKH RQH H[FHSn WLRQ ZDV WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW 2Q WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW VWXGHQWV DFKLHYHG KLJKHU VFRUHV RQ WKH PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ [ f WKDQ RQ WKH VWDQGDUG YHUVLRQ [ f $V LQGLFDWHG LQ IROORZXS DQDO\VHV SHUIRUPDQFH RI (+ DQG /' VWXGHQWV ZDV FRQVLVWHQWO\ VLPLODU RQ DOO VXEWHVWV WKLV ZDV DOVR WUXH RI QRUPDO DQG (+ VWXGHQWV /HDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG DQG QRUPDO VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG VLPLODUO\ RQ RQO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH WHVWV (05 FKLOGUHQ DOZD\V SHUIRUPHG ORZHU WKDQ RWKHU FDWHJRULHV RI VWXGHQWV 5HVXOWV RI DOO IROORZXS DQDO\VHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH VLPLODU PHDQV DUH GHQRWHG E\ DQ XQGHUOLQH

PAGE 66

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQWVn 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6WDQGDUG0RGLILHG 7HVW &DWHJRU\ 7RWDO 7HVW )RUP 6FRUH 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 6WDQGDUG 1RUPDO 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG /' 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (+ 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (05 0RGLILHG $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 6XPPDU\ 6RXUFH 6XPV RI 6TXDUHV66f 0HDQ 6TXDUH06f 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRPGIf ) &DWHJRU\ r 7HVW )RUP r &DWHJRU\ ; 7HVW )RUP (UURU S

PAGE 67

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQWVn 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6XEWHVW IRU ([DPSOH 0RGLILFDWLRQ ([DPSOHV &DWHJRU\ 7HVW )RUP 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 6WDQGDUG 1RUPDO 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG /' 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (+ 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (05 0RGLILHG $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 6XPPDU\ 6XPV RI 0HDQ 'HJUHHV RI 6RXUFH 6TXDUHV66f 6TXDUH06f )UHHGRPGIf ) &DWHJRU\ r 7HVW )RUP r &DWHJRU\ ; 7HVW )RUP (UURU S

PAGE 68

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQWVn 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6XEWHVW IRU %ROGIDFH 7\SH 0RGLILFDWLRQ %ROGIDFH &DWHJRU\ 7HVW )RUP 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 6WDQGDUG 1RUPDO 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG /' 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (+ 0RGLILHG f 6WDQGDUG (05 0RGLILHG $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 6XPPDU\ 6XPV RI 0HDQ 'HJUHHV RI 6RXUFH 6TXDUHV66f 6TXDUH06f )UHHGRPGIf ) &DWHJRU\ r 7HVW )RUP &DWHJRU\ ; 7HVW )RUP (UURU S

PAGE 69

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQWVn 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6XEWHVW IRU $QVZHU %XEEOH 0RGLILFDWLRQ &DWHJRU\ $QVZHU 7HVW )RUP %XEEOHV 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 6WDQGDUG 1RUPDO 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG /' 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (+ 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (05 0RGLILHG $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 6XPPDU\ 6RXUFH 6XPV RI 6TXDUH66f 0HDQ 6TXDUH06f 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRPGIf ) &DWHJRU\ r 7HVW )RUP &DWHJRU\ ; 7HVW )RUP (UURU S

PAGE 70

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQWVn 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6XEWHVW IRU +LHUDUFKLDO 0RGLILFDWLRQ +LHUDUFK\ &DWHJRU\ 7HVW )RUP 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 6WDQGDUG 1RUPDO 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG /' 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (+ 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (05 0RGLILHG 6RXUFH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 6XPPDU\ 6XPV RI 0HDQ 'HJUHHV RI 6TXDUH66f 6TXDUH06f )UHHGRPGIf ) &DWHJRU\ r 7HVW )RUP &DWHJRU\ ; 7HVW )RUP (UURU S

PAGE 71

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQWVn 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6XEWHVW IRU /LQH /HQJWK 0RGLILFDWLRQ /LQH /HQJWK &DWHJRU\ 7HVW )RUP 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 6WDQGDUG 1RUPDO 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG /' 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (+ 0RGLILHG 6WDQGDUG (05 0RGLILHG $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 6XPPDU\ 6XPV RI 0HDQ 'HJUHHV RI 6RXUFH 6TXDUHV66f 6TXDUH06f )UHHGRPGIf ) &DWHJRU\ r 7HVW )RUP &DWHJRU\ ; 7HVW )RUP (UURU S

PAGE 72

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI )ROORZ8S $QDO\VHV 8VLQJ 7XNH\nV +RQHVWO\ 6LJQLILFDQW 'LIIHUHQFHV &DWHJRU\ 1RUPDO (+ /' (05 [ VFRUH [ VFRUH [ VFRUH [ VFRUH 7RWDO 7HVW 6XEWHVWV ([DPSOH %ROGIDFH $QVZHU %XEEOH +LHUDUFK\ /LQH /HQJWK

PAGE 73

&XUUHQW SUDFWLFH LQ UHSRUWLQJ WKH UHVXOWV RI PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ LQ )ORULGD LV WR SUHVHQW VFRUHV WKDW DUH LQGLFDWLYH RI PDVWHU\ RI EDVLF VNLOOV 7KH VWDWH KDV HVWDEOLVKHG PLQLPXP SHUIRUn PDQFH VWDQGDUGV IRU HDFK VXEVNLOO WKH QXPEHU RI LWHPV FRUUHFW UHODWLYH WR WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI VXEVNL LWHPV DWWHPSWHG LV WKH EDVLV IRU GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ UHODWLYH WR PDVWHU\ 7KH PDVWHU\ FULWHULD FXUUHQWO\ EHLQJ XVHG LQ )ORULGD DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH :LWKLQ WKH ILYH GLIIHUHQW VXEWHVWV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ GLIIHUHQW VXE VNLOOV ZHUH LQFOXGHG $ SRVW KRF DQDO\VLV RI WKH VWXGHQWnV WHVW SHUn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

PAGE 74

7DEOH &ULWHULD 8VHG WR 'HWHUPLQH DQG 5HSRUW 0DVWHU\ RI 6NLOOV :KHQ WKH QXPEHU RI TXHVWLRQV WR PHDVXUH D VNLOO LV DV IROORZV 7KH PLQLPXP QXPEHU RI TXHVWLRQV UHTXLUHG WR EH DQVZHUHG FRUUHFWO\ VKDOO EH DV IROORZV RI RI RI RI RI /If RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI 6RXUFH )ORULGD 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFDO 5HSRUW 6WDWH DQG GLVWULFW UHSRUW RI UHVXOWV 7DOODKDVVHH )/ 'LYLVLRQ RI 3XEOLF 6FKRROV 6HULHV )HEUXDU\

PAGE 75

7DEOH &RPSDULVRQ RI 0HDQ 7HVW 6FRUHV IRU 6WDQGDUG DQG 0RGLILHG 6XEWHVWV ZLWK 0DVWHU\ &ULWHULD 0DVWHU\ &ULWHULD 6WDQGDUG 7HVW [ SHUFHQWDJH VFRUH 0RGLILHG 7HVW [ SHUFHQWDJH VFRUH ([DPSOH 'RODU b r )UDFWLRQV b 0HDVXUHPHQW b 6HTXHQFLQJ OVWODVWf b $%& RUGHU b 0DWK :RUG 3UREOHPV b r %ROGIDFH 1RW b r (QG b 3URQRXQ LQ UA r 2SSRVLWHV b r )ROORZLQJ GLUHFWLRQV b $QVZHU %XEEOH GLJLW DGGLWLRQ b 0DWK :RUG 3UREOHPV b r 5HDGLQJ &RPSUHKHQVLRQ b 5HDGLQJ &RPSUHKHQVLRQ b 6SHOOLQJ b A%DVHG RQ GDWD LQ )ORULGD 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFDO UHSRUW 6WDWH DQG GLVWULFW UHSRUW UHVXOWV 7DOODKDVVHH )/ 'LYLVLRQ RI 3XEOLF 6FKRROV 6HULHV )HEUXDU\

PAGE 76

7DEOH &RQWLQXHG 1 & ODVWHU\ ULWHULD 6WDQGDUG 7HVW [ SHUFHQWDJH VFRUH 0RGLILHG 7HVW [ SHUFHQWDJH VFRUH /LQH /HQTWK 5HDGLQJ &RPSHQG b 5HDGLQJ &RPS b :RUG 3UREOHPV b :RUG 3UREOHPV b r 5HDGLQJ &RPSQRW b +LHUDUFK\ $ YHUWLFDO b KRUL]RQWDO b r YHUWLFDO b KRUL]RQWDO b r ,QGLFDWHV WKRVH DFKLHYHG RQ WKH VXEWHVWV PRGLILHG LQ ZKLFK PDVWHU\ FULWHULD ZDV YHUVLRQ EXW QRW RQ WKH VWDQGDUG YHUVLRQ

PAGE 77

FULWHULD ZHUH VXEVWDQWLDOO\ KLJKHU ZKHQ XVLQJ WKH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV /LNHZLVH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ IDYRU RI WKH EROGIDFH W\SH DQG H[DPSOH PRGLILFDWLRQV ZHUH QRWHG IRU /' (+ VWXGHQWV DQG (05 VWXGHQWV UHVSHFWLYHO\ 'DWD VXSSRUWLQJ WKHVH FRQFOXVLRQV DUH FRQWDLQHG LQ 7DEOH ,Q VXPPDU\ WRWDO WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH LQGLFDWHG IRU ERWK FDWHJRU\ DQG WHVW IRUP $V D UHVXOW RI IROORZXS DQDO\VHV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ (+ DQG /' VWXGHQWVn VFRUHV QRU EHWZHHQ WKRVH RI QRUPDO DQG (+ VWXGHQWV ZHUH LQGLFDWHG /HDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG DQG QRUPDO VWXGHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW DQG (05 VWXGHQWVn VFRUHV ZHUH FRQVLVWHQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ WKRVH IRU DQ\ RWKHU FDWHJRU\ RI VWXGHQWV $ FRPSDULVRQ RI WHVW IRUPV LQGLFDWHG WRWDO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW ZDV DSSUR[Ln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nV FXUUHQW PDVWHU\ FULWHULD 0HDQ SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV RQ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW ZHUH SHUFHQWDJH SRLQWV KLJKHU WKDQ WKRVH RQ } m r

PAGE 78

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

PAGE 79

WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW IRU SHUFHQW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VXEVNLOO VHFWLRQV $Q DQDO\VLV RI WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV LQGLFDWHG D QXPEHU RI LQVWDQFHV LH SHUFHQWf ZKHQ PDVWHU\ ZDV DFKLHYHG RQ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW EXW QRW WKH VWDQGDUG )XUWKHU DQDO\VLV DOVR LQGLFDWHG WKDW VSHFLILF WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV SURGXFHG VXEVWDQWLDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ QXPEHUV RI VWXGHQWV DWWDLQLQJ PDVWHU\ FULWHULD E\ FDWHJRU\ 7KHVH GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH VHHQ IRU /' (+ DQG (05 VWXGHQWV XVLQJ XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV /' DQG (+ VWXGHQWV XVLQJ EROGIDFH W\SH DQG (05 VWXGHQWV XVLQJ H[DPSOHV

PAGE 80

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nV WUXH DELOLW\ LV QRW DGHTXDWHO\ DVVHVVHG $OWKRXJK D FKLOG PD\ FRJQLWLYHO\ NQRZ D VNLOO WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK WKH VNLOO LV WHVWHG PD\ IUHTXHQWO\ DIIHFW KLV DELOLW\ WR GHPRQVWUDWH SURILFLHQF\ 7KH VDPH VNLOO SUHn VHQWHG LQ D GLIIHUHQW PDQQHUPRGH PD\ HOLFLW D WRWDOO\ GLIIHUHQW UHVSRQVH 3RVVLEO\ WKH JUHDWHVW LQHTXLWLHV RI WHVWLQJ PD\ EH RFFXUULQJ ZLWK WKH KDQGLFDSSHG SRSXODWLRQ DW WKH HOHPHQWDU\ OHYHO 6DOYLD DQG
PAGE 81

H[SUHVV D UHVSRQVH S f $V D UHVXOW KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV PD\ SRVVLEO\ EH XQDEOH WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKHLU WUXH OHYHO RI FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH LQVWHDG WKHLU UHVSRQVHV PD\ EH D PHDVXUH RI WKHLU DELOLW\ WR GHFRGH WKH GLUHFWLRQV UHDG DOO WKH ZRUGV LQ WKH SDVVDJH DQG WUDQVIHU DQVZHUV *HDUKHDUW DQG :LOOHQEHUJ f HPSKDVL]H WKH QHHG IRU WHVWLQJ H[DPLQHUV WR EH DZDUH RI DQ\ FRQIRXQGLQJ IDFWRUV LQKHUHQW WR VRPH KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQV 7KH\ VWUHVV WKH QHHG WR UHPHPEHU WKH SULPDU\ KDQGLFDS DQG PDNH FHUWDLQ \RX DUH WHVWLQJ ZKDW \RX LQWHQG WR WHVW QRW WKH UHIOHFWLRQ RU RXWFRPH RI WKH GLVDELOLW\ S f ,QGLYLGXDOV LQYROYHG LQ WKH GHVLJQ DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WHVWV PXVW EH H[WUHPHO\ FDUHIXO WR UHFRJQL]H WKH SRVVLEOH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH VWXGHQWnV DELOLW\ KLV GLVDELOLW\ DQG WKH EHKDYLRU VDPSOHG E\ WKH WHVW LWHPV &RQVLGHUDWLRQ RI DSSURSULDWH WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQ DSSHDUV ZDUUDQWHG 6DOYLD DQG
PAGE 82

GHILFLHQFLHV RU SRRU GHFRGLQJ VNLOOV :KHQ D WHVW FRPSHQVDWHV IRU WKHVH ZHDNQHVVHV WKHUH LV D JUHDWHU DVVXUDQFH WKDW WKH FKLOGnV WUXH DELOLW\ KDV EHHQ DFFXUDWHO\ PHDVXUHG 'LDJQRVWLFLDQV DQG HGXFDWRUV FDQ WKHQ SURFHHG WR WDNH IXOO DGYDQWDJH RI WKH EHQHILWV WKDW WHVWLQJ KDV WR RIIHU 7KHUH KDV EHHQ OLWWOH UHVHDUFK DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SK\VLFDO WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV )XUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQV DSSHDU WR EH ZDUUDQWHG IRU WKRVH PRGLILFDWLRQV WKDW DUH VSHFLILFDOO\ GHVLJQHG IRU WKH PLOG HGXFDWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG /' (+ (05f VWXGHQW 6DOYLD t
PAGE 83

VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV IRU WHVW IRUP H[LVWHG RQO\ IRU WRWDO WHVW VFRUHV DQG WKRVH IRU WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW 2Q WKH DYHUDJH VWXGHQWV WDNLQJ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW SHUIRUPHG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VL[ SRLQWV KLJKHU RQ WKH LWHP WHVW WKDQ WKRVH VWXGHQWV WDNLQJ WKH VWDQGDUG YHUVLRQ 2Q WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW VWXGHQWV DFKLHYHG KLJKHU VFRUHV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ WZR SRLQWV RU D JDLQ RI SHUFHQWf RQ WKH PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ WKDQ RQ WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW 7KHVH ILQGLQJV ZRXOG VXJJHVW WKDW VWXGHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH YDULHV ZLWK WKH W\SH RI WHVW DGPLQLVWHUHG LQ IDYRU RI WKH PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ &DWHJRU\ $QDO\VHV 6LJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV IRU FDWHJRU\ RI VWXGHQW ZHUH IXUWKHU HYDOXDWHG XVLQJ 7XNH\nV +RQHVWO\ 6LJQLILFDQW 'LIIHUHQFHV SURFHGXUH &RQVLVWHQW IRU DOO WHVWV WRWDO DQG VXEWHVWVf ZDV VLPLODU SHUIRUPn DQFH EHWZHHQ (+ DQG /' VWXGHQWV DQG EHWZHHQ QRUPDO DQG (+ VWXGHQWV 2Q WZR VXEWHVWV WKRVH PRGLILHG E\ KLHUDUFKLDO DUUDQJHPHQW RI LWHPV DQG XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKVf /' DQG QRUPDO VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG VLPn LODUO\ ,Q DOO RWKHU LQVWDQFHV (05 DQG /' VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ RWKHU FDWHJRULHV RI VWXGHQWV 7KHVH UHVXOWV VXSSRUW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK DVVLJQHG FDWHJRU\ 3RVW +RF $QDO\VHV $GGLWLRQDO DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG WR DGGUHVV WKH VSHFLILF HIIHFWV RI WKH WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV UHODWLYH WR LQGLYLGXDO JURXSV RI

PAGE 84

VWXGHQWV $OWKRXJK WKH RYHUDOO DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKHVH WHVW VFRUHV ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH D OHYHO WKH LVVXH RI PDVWHU\ RI LQGLYLGXDO VXEVNLOOV ZDV RI LQWHUHVW 7KH SHUFHQWDJH RI LWHPV FRUUHFW IRU HDFK VXEVNL RQ ERWK WHVW YHUVLRQV ZDV FDOFXODWHG 7KHVH VFRUHV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH FXUUHQW VWDWH PDVWHU\ FULWHULD 7KLV FRPSDULVRQ UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV RQ WKH PRGLILHG WHVW ZHUH KLJKHU WKDQ WKRVH RQ WKH VWDQGDUG WHVW IRU SHUFHQW f RI WKH VXEVNLOOV WHVWHG 7KH LQFUHDVH EHWZHHQ PHDQ VFRUHV UDQJHG IURP WR SHUFHQWDJH SRLQWV 7KHVH LQFUHDVHV LQ SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV IRU WKH PRGLILHG WHVW VXEVHn TXHQWO\ EHFDPH WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PDVWHU\ DQG IDLOXUH IRU SHUFHQW f RI WKH VXEVNLOO VHFWLRQV 6WXGHQWV WDNLQJ WKH PRGLn ILHG WHVW DFKLHYHG PDVWHU\ OHYHO FULWHULD IRU RQHWKLUG RI WKH VXE VNLOOV WKDW ZHUH QRW PDVWHUHG RQ WKH VWDQGDUG YHUVLRQ 7KLV DQDO\VLV DOVR UHYHDOHG WKDW VSHFLILF PRGLILFDWLRQV DSSHDUHG WR IDFLOLWDWH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI PDVWHU\ E\ FHUWDLQ FDWHJRULHV RI KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV )UHTXHQF\ RI PDVWHU\ ZDV VXEVWDQWLDOO\ KLJKHU IRU /' (+ (05 VWXn GHQWV RQ WKH XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWK VXEWHVW /' DQG (+ VWXGHQWV RQ WKH EROGIDFH W\SH VXEWHVW DQG (05 VWXGHQWV RQ WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW $QRWKHU LVVXH RI LQWHUHVW ZDV WKH SUHVHQFH RI DQ\ WUHQG LQ SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV EHWZHHQ FDWHJRULHV RQ WRWDO WHVW 6RPH SURn IHVVLRQDOV PD\ DUJXH WKDW SK\VLFDO IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV PD\ VLPSO\ UDLVH WKH WHVW VFRUHV DFURVV DOO FDWHJRULHV 5HVXOWV RI WKH SRVW KRF DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKLV ZDV DSSDUHQWO\ QRW WUXH LQ WKLV VWXG\ :KLOH WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ PHDQ SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV

PAGE 85

IRU QRUPDO VWXGHQWV ZDV LQ IDYRU RI WKH PRGLILHG WHVWf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n DOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV FRQVLVWHQWO\ VFRUHG DQ DYHUDJH RI WZR SRLQWV SHUFHQWf KLJKHU RQ WKH PRGLILHG VXEWHVWV IRU H[DPSOHV EROGIDFH W\SH DQG DQVZHU EXEEOH SODFHPHQW /HDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG VWXGHQWV DFKLHYHG DQ DYHUDJH RI WZR SRLQWV KLJKHU RQ WKH EROGIDFH W\SH VXEWHVW DQG WKUHH SRLQWV SHUFHQWf KLJKHU RQ WKH XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWK VXEWHVW ERWK PRGLILHG YHUVLRQV 1RUPDO DQG HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG VWXGHQWVn DYHUDJH VFRUHV GLG QRW DSSHDU WR EH DIIHFWHG E\ VXEWHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV 2QH H[FHSWLRQ WR WKLV ZDV (05 PHDQ VFRUHV RQ WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW ,Q WKLV RQH LQVWDQFH WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ PHDQ VFRUHV UHDFKHG VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH D GLIIHUHQFH RI SHUFHQW 2EVHUYDWLRQV 6HYHUDO REVHUYDWLRQV ZHUH PDGH UHJDUGLQJ FHUWDLQ LUUHJXODULWLHV LQ FKLOGUHQnV SHUIRUPDQFHV DQG DQ\ EHKDYLRUV WKDW RFFXUUHG IUHTXHQWO\

PAGE 86

)RU H[DPSOH LW EHFDPH DSSDUHQW HDUO\ LQ WKH SLORW VWXG\ WKDW WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ 7KRVH VWXGHQWV ZKR UHDG ZHOO SHUIRUPHG ZHOO DQG WKRVH VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG SRRU UHDGn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n LQJ VNLOOV LQ UHDGLQJ 7KH\ UHDG WKH TXHVWLRQ WR EH DQVZHUHG ILUVW DQG WKHQ FRQWLQXHG WR ILQG WKH VROXWLRQ LQ WKH SDVVDJH )RU H[DPSOH LQ UHVSRQVH WR +RZ GLG WKH VWRU\ HQG" WKHVH VWXGHQWV LPPHGLDWHO\ ZHQW WR WKH ODVW VHQWHQFH ZLWKRXW UHDGLQJ WKH HQWLUH SDVVDJHf DQG PDUNHG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ DQVZHU 6RPH VWXGHQWV DOVR GHPRQVWUDWHG SDUWLFXODU GLIILFXOWLHV ZLWK WKH VXEVNL RI IROORZLQJ GLUHFWLRQV 7KHUH ZDV D WHQGHQF\ IRU D JUHDW PDQ\ WR IROORZ WKH DOSKDEHW VHTXHQFH RI ODEHOHG GRWV UDWKHU WKDQ IROORZLQJ WKH ZULWWHQ VHTXHQFH RI GLUHFWLRQV )UHTXHQWO\ VWXGHQWV ZRXOG DOVR UHDG WKH GLUHFWLRQV FRPSOHWHO\ DQG WKHQ GHFODUH GRQnW NQRZ ZKDW ,nP VXSSRVHG WR GR $IWHU WKH WHVW ZDV FRPSOHWHG VHYHUDO

PAGE 87

FKLOGUHQ ZHUH WDNHQ DVLGH DQG DVNHG WR UHGR LWHPV IURP WKLV VHFWLRQ ,Q HDFK LQVWDQFH WKH FKLOG UHDG WKH SUREOHP DORXG $W WKH HQG RI HDFK VHQWHQFH WKDW LQFOXGHG D GLUHFWLRQDO FOXH WKH H[DPLQHUV VDLG 'R LW 7KH FRQIXVLRQ ZDV DOO EXW HOLPLQDWHG DQG WKH VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG ZLWK OLWWOH GLIILFXOW\ $QRWKHU FRQVLVWHQW SUREOHP IRU VWXGHQWV ZDV WKRVH WHVW LWHPV PHDVXULQJ WKH FKLOGn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n DOHQW WR WKRVH WKDW FRXOG EH REWDLQHG RQ D RQH WR RQH H[DPLQHU WR VWXGHQW EDVLV )LQDOO\ WKHUH ZHUH WKRVH VWXGHQWV ZKR GLG QRW SD\ DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH WHVW LWHP QXPEHUV ,QVWHDG RI SURJUHVVLQJ YHUWLFDOO\ GRZQ HDFK VLGH RI WKH SDJH DV WKH WHVW ZDV QXPEHUHG PRVW FKLOGUHQ SURFHHGHG WR DQVZHU WKH LWHPV SUHVHQWHG KRUL]RQWDOO\ DFURVV WKH WRS RI HDFK SDJH DQG WKHQ DFURVV WKH ERWWRP 2QH FXUULFXOXP UHVRXUFH WHDFKHU QRWHG ,W PDNHV PH VR DQJU\ 7KH PLQLPXP FRPSHn WHQF\ WHVWV DUH ODLG RXW LQ D GLIIHUHQW RUGHU WKDQ WKH *LQQ UHDGLQJ ZRUNERRNV DQG WHVWV 7KH NLGV IUHTXHQWO\ JHW VR FRQIXVHG 7KLV FRQIXVLRQ UHVXOWV IURP UHDGLQJ RQH SDVVDJH XSSHU OHIW TXDGUDQWf DQG

PAGE 88

DQVZHULQJ TXHVWLRQV WR DQRWKHU SDVVDJH XSSHU ULJKW TXDGUDQWf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n SHUIRUPn DQFH RQ WKH H[DPSOH VXEWHVW WKHVH VWXGHQWV PD\ LQGHHG NQRZ KRZ WR SHUIRUP D VNLOO EXW GHPRQVWUDWH SURILFLHQF\ PRUH UHDGLO\ ZKHQ H[DPSOHV DUH SURYLGHG 7KH WHVW VFRUHV RI HPRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV DOVR DSSHDUHG WR EH DIIHFWHG b JDLQf E\ WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI H[DPSOHV /HDUQLQJ 'LVDEOHG DQG HPRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWVn VFRUHV LPSURYHG b ZLWK WKH XVH RI EROGIDFH W\SH 2WKHU VWXGHQWV KRZHYHU GLG QRW DSSHDU WR EHQHILW IURP WKH DGGLWLRQDO DWWHQWLRQ FUHDWHG E\ b f EROGIDFH W\SH %DVLFDOO\ VWXGHQWV ZKR NQRZ VXFK FOXH ZRUGV DV ZKR

PAGE 89

ZKDW ZKHUH QRW HQG ILUVW ODVW DSSDUHQWO\ GR UHTXLUH DQ\ DGGLWLRQDO HPSKDVLV WR DLG LQ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ /HDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG VWXGHQWV DSSHDUHG WR EHQHILW b JDLQf IURP DOWHUDWLRQV LQ OLQH OHQJWK 2WKHU VWXGHQWV SHUIRUPHG VLPLODUO\ RQ SDVVDJHV VHW LQ MXVWLILHG DQG XQMXVWLILHG PDQQHU ,W DSSHDUV WKDW WKH RUGHU RI LWHP SUHVHQWDWLRQ GRHV QRW PDNH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI DQ\ FDWHJRU\ RI VWXGHQW ,I WKH VWXGHQW LV SURILFLHQW ZLWK D WDVN KH DSSHDUV WR EH DEOH WR GHPRQDWUDWH KLV DELOLW\ UHJDUGOHVV RI SODFHPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH WHVW 6LPLODUO\ DQVZHU EXEEOH SODFHPHQW GRHV QRW DSSHDU WR DIIHFW SHUIRUPn DQFH RI DQ\ W\SH RI VWXGHQW $V D UHVXOW RI REVHUYDWLRQV PDGH WKURXJKRXW WKH VWXG\ LW DSSHDUV WKDW WHDFKHUV PD\ ZLVK WR JLYH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WR WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WHVW WDNLQJ VNLOOV 7KH SHUIRUPDQFH RI PLOGO\ KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV PD\ EH HQKDQFHG IURP GLUHFW LQVWUXFWLRQ RI VXFK VNLOOV DV UHFRJn QL]LQJ EDVLF GLUHFWLRQ ZRUGV DERYH GLIIHUHQW FKRRVH RWKHUf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n IRUPHG ORZHU WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU FDWHJRU\ 7KHUH ZHUH QR LQWHUDFWLRQV

PAGE 90

SUHVHQW EHWZHHQ FDWHJRU\ RI VWXGHQW DQG WHVW IRUP $V FDQ EH VHHQ IURP GDWD SUHVHQWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ ( LW ZDV QRW SRVVLEOH WR GHWHUPLQH VLJQLILFDQFH RI HLWKHU VH[ RU UDFH RQ WHVW VFRUHV GXH WR WKH OLPLWHG VDPSOH VL]H 5HVXOWV RI SRVW KRF DQDO\VLV KRZHYHU LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH PRGLILn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b JDLQVf ZHUH QRWLFHG KRZHYHU LQ WKH XVH RI H[DPSOHV DQG EROGIDFH W\SH IRU HPRWLRQn DOO\ GLVWXUEHG VWXGHQWV DQG ZLWK EROGIDFH W\SH DQG XQMXVWLILHG OLQH OHQJWKV IRU OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG VWXGHQWV 'XH WR WKH OLPLWHG DPRXQW RI UHVHDUFK WKDW KDV EHHQ SUHYLRXVO\ GRQH DQG EHFDXVH WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ KDYH EHHQ IDYRUDEOH IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK RQ WKLV WRSLF DSSHDUV MXVWLILHG

PAGE 91

5()(5(1&(6 $EHVRQ $ t =HWWHO 7KH HQG RI WKH TXLHW UHYROXWLRQ 7KH (GXFDWLRQ IRU $OO +DQGLFDSSHG &KLOGUHQ $FW RI ([FHSWLRQDO &KLOGUHQ %HDWWLH 6 t $OJR]]LQH % $VVHVVPHQW RI PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ LQ JUDGHV WKUHH DQG ILYH $Q DQDO\VLV RI PRGLILFDWLRQV WR )ORULGDnV 6WDWH 6WXGHQW $VVHVVPHQW 7HVW, )LQDO 5HSRUW &RQWUDFW *DLQHVYLOOH )/ 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ %HFN 0 $FKLHYHPHQW WHVW UHOLDELOLW\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI SXSLO UHVSRQVH SURFHGXUHV -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 7O %HUU\ 0 ) 6WXGHQW FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ +LJK 6FKRRO -RXUQDO %UHQQHU 0 + 7HVW GLIILFXOW\ UHOLDELOLW\ DQG GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DV IXQFWLRQV RI LWHP GLIILFXOW\ RUGHU -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ &DVKHQ 9 0 t 5DPVH\HU 7KH XVH RI VHSDUDWH DQVZHU VKHHWV E\ SULPDU\ DJH FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 0HDVXUHPHQW &ODUN & $ 7KH XVH RI VHSDUDWH DQVZHU VKHHWV LQ WHVWLQJ VORZOHDUQLQJ SXSLOV -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 0HDVXUHPHQW A &OLIW 7 7KH UHJHQWV FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ SURJUDP &RPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ UHPHGLDO LQVWUXFWLRQ DQG KLJK VFKRRO FUHGHQWLDOV 1HZ
PAGE 92

'RQRKXH Y &RSLDJXH 8QLRQ )UHH 6FKRRO 'LVWULFW 1<6 G $SS 'LY f (UGPDQQ 5 / t 1HDO $ 6 :RUG OHJLELOLW\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI OHWWHU OHJLELOLW\ ZLWK ZRUG VL]H ZRUG IDPLOLDULW\ DQG UHVROXWLRQ DV SDUDPHWHUV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ (ZLQJ 1 0LQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ DQG WKH KDQGLFDSSHG 0DMRU LVVXHV +LJK 6FKRRO -RXUQDO )HUJXVRQ $ 6WDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ DQG HGXFDWLRQ UG HGf 1HZ
PAGE 93

+ROOLGD\ : t 3DUWULGJH / $ 'LIIHUHQWLDO RI WHVW LWHPV RQ FKLOGUHQ VHTXHQFLQJ HIIHFWV -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK LQ 6FLHQFH 7HDFKLQJ .DOX]Q\ % $ &RPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ DQG WKH KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQW (GXFDWLRQ 8QOLPLWHG 0DGDXV ) 1,( FODULILFDWLRQ KHDULQJ 7KH QHJDWLYH WHDPnV FDVH 3KL 'HOWD .DSSDQ 0DMRUV : t 0LFKDHO 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS RI DFKLHYHPHQW RQ D WHDFKHUPDGH PDWKHPDWLFV WHVW RI FRPSXWDWLRQDO VNLOOV WR WZR ZD\V RI UHFRUGLQJ DQVZHUV DQG WR WZR ZRUNVSDFH DUUDQJHPHQWV (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 0DUJROLV + %UDQQLJDQ * t 3HQQHU : 0RGLILFDWLRQ RI LPSXOVLYH YLVXDO GLVFULPLQDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ 0DUVK ( ,, *HDUKHDUW t *HDUKHDUW % 5 7KH OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG DGROHVFHQW 3URJUDP DOWHUQDWLYHV LQ WKH VHFRQGDU\ VFKRRO 6W /RXLV 7KH & 9 0RVE\ &RPSDQ\ 0DUVR 5 1 7HVW LWHP DUUDQJHPHQW WHVWLQJ WLPH DQG SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 0F&DUWK\ 0 0 0LQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ DQG KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV ([FHSWLRQDO &KLOGUHQ 0F&OXQJ 0 6 &RPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ 3RWHQWLDO IRU GLVFULPLQDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 5HYLHZ -OB 0F&OXQJ 0 6 &RPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ SURJUDPV /HJDO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO LVVXHV )RUGKDP /DZ 5HYLHZ 0F&OXQJ 0 6 t 3XOOLQ &RPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ DQG KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV &OHDULQJKRXVH 5HYLHZ 9_B 0RUVLQN & (Gf '(/7$ $ GHVLJQ IRU ZRUG DWWDFN JURZWK 7XOVD 2. (GXFDWLRQDO 'HYHORSPHQW &RUSRUDWLRQ 0XOOHU &DOKRXQ ( t 2UOLQJ 5 7HVW UHOLDELOLW\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI DQVZHU VKHHW PRGH -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WDWH 'LUHFWRUV RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ DQG WKH 1RUWK &DUROLQD 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3XEOLF ,QVWUXFWLRQ 'LYLVLRQ RI ([FHSWLRQDO &KLOGUHQ &RPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH DZDUGLQJ RI GLSORPDV :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WDWH 'LUHFWRUV RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ

PAGE 94

1HLOO 6 % $ VXPPDU\ RI LVVXHV LQ WKH PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ PRYHPHQW 3KL 'HOWD .DSSDQ 3DELDQ 0 (GXFDWLRQ PDOSUDFWLFH DQG PLQLPDO FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ ,V WKHUH D OHJDO UHPHG\ DW ODVW" 1HZ (QJODQG /DZ 5HYLHZ 3HUH] 3URFHGXUDO DGDSWDWLRQV DQG IRUPDW PRGLILFDWLRQV LQ PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ RI OHDUQLQJ GLVDEOHG VWXGHQWV $ FOLQLFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 8QSXEOLVKHG PDQXVFULSW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 6RXWK )ORULGD 3HWHU : Y 6DQ )UDQFLVFR 8QLILHG 6FKRRO 'LVWULFW &DO 5SWU f 3LQNQH\ + % 7KH PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ PRYHPHQW LQ HGXFDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 3RSKDP : 7KH FDVH IRU PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ 3KL 'HOWD .DSSDQ A 5HLFKDUG & / t 5HLG : 5 $Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI IRUPDW IRU UHDGLQJ PDWHULDO IRU WKH HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG -RXUQDO RI 5HDGLQJ 6DIHU 1 ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQF\ VWDQGDUGV DQG WHVWLQJ IRU KDQGLFDSSHG VWXGHQWV ([FHSWLRQDO &KLOGUHQ A 6DOYLD t
PAGE 95

6\NHV & $ FRPSDULVRQ RI WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI VWDQGDUG SULQW DQG ODUJH SULQW LQ IDFLOLWDWLQJ WKH UHDGLQJ VNLOOV RI YLVXDOO\ LPSDLUHG VWXGHQWV (GXFDWLRQ RI WKH 9LVXDOO\ +DQGLFDSSHG 7LQNHU 0 /HJLELOLW\ RI SULQW $PHV ,RZD ,RZD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV >Df 7LQNHU 0 7\SRJUDSK\ DQG GHVLJQ WUDLQLQJ VHULHVf :DVKLQJWRQ '& 86 *RYHUQPHQW 3ULQWLQJ 2IILFH Ef 7LQNHU 0 $ t 3DWWHUVRQ ,QIOXHQFH RI W\SH IRUP RQ VSHHG RI UHDGLQJ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ A :DWWV ,V FRPSHWHQF\ WHVWLQJ WKH DQVZHU" &OHDULQJ +RXVH
PAGE 96

$33(1',; $ (/,*,%,/,7< &5,7(5,$ 6SHFLILF /HDUQLQJ 'LVDELOLWLHV 6SHFLILF OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHVf§RQH ZKR H[KLELWV D GLVRUGHU LQ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH EDVLF SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV LQYROYHG LQ XQGHUn VWDQGLQJ RU LQ XVLQJ VSRNHQ DQG ZULWWHQ ODQJXDJH 7KHVH PD\ EH PDQLn IHVWHG LQ GLVRUGHUV RI OLVWHQLQJ WKLQNLQJ UHDGLQJ WDONLQJ ZULWLQJ VSHOOLQJ RU DULWKPHWLF 7KH\ GR QRW LQFOXGH OHDUQLQJ SUREOHPV ZKLFK DUH GXH SULPDULO\ WR YLVXDO KHDULQJ RU PRWRU KDQGLFDSV WR PHQWDO UHWDUGDWLRQ HPRWLRQDO GLVWXUEDQFH RU WR DQ HQYLURQPHQWDO GHSULYDn WLRQ &ULWHULD IRU (OLJLELOLW\ D 7KH VWXGHQW PXVW EH RI VFKRRO DJH E (YLGHQFH RI D GLVRUGHU LQ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH EDVLF SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV f %DVHG RQ D VWXGHQWnV H[SHFWHG OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQLQJ D VFRUH RI WZR VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RU OHVV EHORZ WKH PHDQ LQ RQH SURFHVV DUHD RU D VFRUH RI RQH DQG RQH KDOI VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RU OHVV EHORZ WKH PHDQ LQ WKUHH RU PRUH SURFHVV DUHDV 3URFHVV DUHDV DUH GHILQHG DV YLVXDO FKDQQHO SURFHVVHV DXGLWRU\ FKDQQHO SURFHVVHV KDSWLF FKDQQHO SURFHVVHV ODQJXDJH

PAGE 97

SURFHVVHV DQG VHQVRU\ LQWHJUDWHG SURFHVVHV ,Q FDVHV ZKHUH WKH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ LV QRW DYDLODEOH D VFRUH RI SHUFHQW RU OHVV RI WKH VWXGHQWnV H[SHFWDQF\ DJH LQ RQH SURFHVV DUHD RI SHUFHQW RU OHVV LQ WKUHH RU PRUH SURFHVV DUHDV PD\ EH XVHG f (YLGHQFH RI D SURFHVV VWUHQJWK DW RU DERYH WKH VWXGHQWnV H[SHFWHG OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQLQJ f ,I PRUH WKDQ RQH SURFHVV WHVW LQVWUXPHQW LV XVHG WR GRFXPHQW D GHILFLW RU VWUHQJWK WKH UHVXOWV PXVW FRQn VLVWHQWO\ VKRZ GHILFLWV RU VWUHQJWKV LQ WKH VDPH SURFHVV DUHD ,I PRUH WKDQ RQH OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQn LQJ LV REWDLQHG WKH PHDQ OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQLQJ ZLOO EH XVHG WR HVWDEOLVK D GHILFLW RU VWUHQJWK f 2QO\ VXEWHVWV DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH VWXGHQWnV H[SHFWDQF\ DJH VKRXOG EH XVHG IRU SODFHPHQW SXUSRVHV f $ VWXGHQW GRHV QRW TXDOLI\ IRU HOLJLELOLW\ LI WKH IROORZLQJ VXEWHVWV DUH WKH RQO\ RQHV WKDW LQGLFDWH D SURFHVV VWUHQJWK RU GHILFLW Df 'HWURLW 7HVW RI /HDUQLQJ $ELOLWLHV )UHH $VVRFLDWLRQ 6RFLDO $GMXVWPHQW $ 6RFLDO $GMXVWPHQW % 1XPEHU $ELOLW\ Ef ,OOLQRLV 7HVW RI 3V\FKROLQJXLVWLF $ELOLWLHV 0DQXDO ([SUHVVLRQ *UDPPDWLF &ORVXUH 6RXQG %OHQGLQJ ,Q RUGHU IRU WKHVH VXEWHVWV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG WKH\ PXVW EH YLHZHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK RWKHU VXEWHVWV

PAGE 98

F (YLGHQFH RI DFDGHPLF GHILFLWV f %DVHG RQ WKH VWXGHQWnV H[SHFWHG OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQLQJ D VFRUH RI SHUFHQW H[SHFWDQF\ DJH RU EHORZ IRU WKLUG WKURXJK VL[WK JUDGH SHUFHQW H[SHFWDQF\ DJH RU EHORZ IRU VHYHQWK WKURXJK QLQWK JUDGH RU SHUn FHQW H[SHFWDQF\ DJH RU EHORZ IRU WHQWK WKURXJK WZHOIWK JUDGH LV UHTXLUHG LQ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH IROORZLQJ DFDGHPLF DUHDV UHDGLQJ ZULWLQJ DULWKPHWLF RU VSHOOLQJ )RU VWXGHQWV LQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ DQG ILUVW JUDGH HYLGHQFH PXVW EH SUHVHQWHG WKDW DFKLHYHPHQW LV SHUFHQW H[SHFWDQF\ DJH RU EHORZ RQ SUHDFDGHPLF WDVNV ZKLFK UHTXLUH OLVWHQLQJ WKLQNLQJ RU VSHDNLQJ VNLOOV )RU VWXGHQWV LQ VHFRQG JUDGH HYLGHQFH PXVW EH SUHVHQWHG WKDW DFKLHYHPHQW LV SHUFHQW H[SHFWDQF\ DJH RU EHORZ RQ SUHDFDGHPLF WDVNV ZKLFK UHTXLUH OLVWHQLQJ WKLQNLQJ RU VSHDNLQJ VNLOOV $ VWXGHQW PD\ QRW EH SODFHG IRU D GHILFLW LQ HLWKHU ZULWLQJ RU VSHOOLQJ RU ERWK f ,I PRUH WKDQ RQH DFDGHPLF LQVWUXPHQW LV XVHG WR GRFXPHQW D ZHDNQHVV WKH UHVXOWV PXVW FRQVLVWHQWO\ VKRZ GHILFLWV LQ WKH VDPH DFDGHPLF DUHD ,I PRUH WKDQ RQH OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQLQJ LV REWDLQHG WKH PHDQ OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQLQJ ZLOO EH XVHG WR HVWDEOLVK ZHDNQHVV G (YLGHQFH WKDW OHDUQLQJ SUREOHPV DUH QRW GXH SULPDULO\ WR RWKHU KDQGLFDSSLQJ FRQGLWLRQV f $ VFRUH RI QRW OHVV WKDQ WZR VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV EHORZ WKH PHDQ RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO WHVW RI LQWHOOHFWXDO IXQFWLRQLQJ

PAGE 99

RU HYLGHQFH LQGLFDWRU RI WKH VWXGHQWnV LQWHOOHFWXDO SRWHQWLDO f )RU VWXGHQWV ZLWK YLVXDO SURFHVVLQJ GHILFLWV YLVXDO DFXLW\ RI DW OHDVW LQ WKH EHWWHU H\H ZLWK EHVW SRVVLEOH FRUUHFWLRQ RU HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH VWXGHQWnV LQDELOLW\ WR SHUIRUP DGHTXDWHO\ RQ WDVNV ZKLFK UHTXLUH YLVXDO SURFHVVLQJ LV QRW GXH WR SRRU YLVXDO DFXLW\ f )RU VWXGHQWV ZLWK DXGLWRU\ SURFHVVLQJ RU ODQJXDJH GHILFLWV DXGLWRU\ DFXLW\ RI QRW PRUH WKDQ D GHFLEHO ORVV LQ WKH EHWWHU HDU XQDLGHG RU HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH VWXGHQWnV LQDELOLW\ WR SHUIRUP DGHTXDWHO\ RQ WDVNV ZKLFK UHTXLUH DXGLWRU\ SURFHVVLQJ RU ODQJXDJH LV GXH WR SRRU DXGLWRU\ DFXLW\ f )RU VWXGHQW ZLWK D PRWRU KDQGLFDS HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH LQDELOLW\ WR SHUIRUP DGHTXDWHO\ RQ WDVNV ZKLFK DVVHVV WKH EDVLF SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV LV QRW GXH WR WKH PRWRU KDQGLFDS f )RU VWXGHQWV ZKR H[KLELW SHUVLVWHQW DQG FRQVLVWHQW VHYHUH HPRWLRQDO GLVWXUEDQFH HYLGHQFH WKDW WKHLU LQDELOLW\ WR SHUIRUP DGHTXDWHO\ RQ WDVNV ZKLFK DVVHVV WKH EDVLF SV\FKRn ORJLFDO SURFHVVHV LV QRW GXH WR WKH HPRWLRQDO GLVWXUEDQFH H 'RFXPHQWHG HYLGHQFH ZKLFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW YLDEOH JHQHUDO HGXFDn WLRQDO DOWHUQDWLYHV KDYH EHHQ DWWHPSWHG DQG IRXQG WR EH LQHIIHFWLYH LQ PHHWLQJ WKH VWXGHQWnV HGXFDWLRQDO QHHGV

PAGE 100

(GXFDEOH 0HQWDOO\ 5HWDUGHG (GXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHGf§RQH ZKR LV PLOGO\ LPSDLUHG LQ LQWHOn OHFWXDO DQG DGDSWLYH EHKDYLRU DQG ZKRVH GHYHORSPHQW UHIOHFWV D UHGXFHG UDWH RI OHDUQLQJ 7KH PHDVXUHG LQWHOOLJHQFH RI DQ HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG VWXGHQW JHQHUDOO\ IDOOV EHWZHHQ WZR f DQG WKUHH f VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV EHORZ WKH PHDQ DQG WKH DVVHVVHG DGDSWLYH EHKDYLRU IDOOV EHORZ DJH DQG FXOWXUDO H[SHFWDWLRQV &ULWHULD IRU (OLJLELOLW\ D 7KH PHDVXUHG OHYHO RI LQWHOOHFWXDO IXQFWLRQLQJ DV GHWHUPLQHG E\ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO WHVW RI LQWHOOLJHQFH LV EHWZHHQ WZR f DQG WKUHH f VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV EHORZ WKH PHDQ 7KH VWDQGDUG HUURU RI PHDVXUHPHQW PD\ EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ LQGLYLGXDO FDVHV 7KH SURILOH RI LQWHOOHFWXDO IXQFWLRQLQJ VKRZV FRQVLVWHQW VXEDYHUDJH SHUIRUPDQFH LQ D PDMRULW\ RI DUHDV HYDOXDWHG E 7KH DVVHVVHG OHYHO RI DGDSWLYH EHKDYLRU LV EHORZ DJH DQG FXOWXUDO H[SHFWDWLRQV F 6XEDYHUDJH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ D VWDQGDUGL]HG PHDVXUH RI DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW LV GHPRQVWUDWHG (PRWLRQDOO\ +DQGLFDSSHG (PRWLRQDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHGf§RQH ZKR DIWHU UHFHLYLQJ VXSSRUWLYH HGXFDWLRQDO DVVLVWDQFH DQG FRXQVHOLQJ VHUYLFHV DYDLODEOH WR DOO VWXGHQWV VWLOO H[KLELWV D SHUVLVWHQW DQG FRQVLVWHQW VHYHUH HPRWLRQDO KDQGLFDS ZKLFK FRQVHTXHQWO\ GLVUXSWV WKH VWXGHQWnV RZQ OHDUQLQJ SURFHVV 7KLV LV WKH VWXGHQW ZKRVH LQDELOLW\ WR DFKLHYH DGHTXDWH

PAGE 101

DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV RU VDWLVIDFWRU\ LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV FDQQRW EH DWWULEXWHG SULPDULO\ WR SK\VLFDO VHQVRU\ RU LQWHOOHFWXDO GHILFLWV &ULWHULD IRU (OLJLELOLW\ D (YLGHQFH WKDW WKH VWXGHQW KDV UHFHLYHG VXSSRUWLYH HGXFDWLRQDO DVVLVWDQFH FRXQVHOLQJ E (YLGHQFH WKDW WKH VWXGHQW H[KLELWV D SHUVLVWHQW DQG FRQVLVWHQW VHYHUH HPRWLRQDO KDQGLFDS DV GHWHUPLQHG E\ GRFXPHQWHG REVHUYDn WLRQV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO HYDOXDWLRQ F (YLGHQFH WKDW WKH EHKDYLRU GLVUXSWV WKH VWXGHQWnV DELOLW\ WR DFKLHYH DGHTXDWH DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV RU GHYHORS VDWLVIDFWRU\ LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV G (YLGHQFH WKDW WKH SULPDU\ SUREOHP RI WKH VWXGHQW FDQQRW EH DWWULEXWHG SULPDULO\ WR SK\VLFDO VHQVRU\ RU LQWHOOHFWXDO GHILFLWV

PAGE 102

$33(1',; % 3$5(17 3(50,66,21 6/,36 'HDU 3DUHQW DP FXUUHQWO\ D GRFWRUDO FDQGLGDWH LQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DP LQ WKH SURFHVV RI FRQn GXFWLQJ D VWXG\ WR ILQG RXW LI GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH ZD\ WHVW TXHVWLRQV DUH ZRUGHG SODFHG RU PDUNHG ZLOO DIIHFW KRZ WKLUG JUDGH VWXGHQWV GR RQ WKH WHVW &KLOGUHQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO EH DVNHG WR WDNH D LWHP WHVW ZKLFK VKRXOG WDNH DERXW PLQXWHV 7KH WHVW ZLOO EH PXFK OLNH WKH 6WDWH 6WXGHQW $VVHVVPHQW 7HVW ZKLFK WKLUG JUDGHUV LQ )ORULGD WDNH HDFK 2FWREHU 7KH WHVW VFRUHV ZLOO UHPDLQ FRQILGHQWLDO DQG ZLOO QRW EH UHFRUGHG LQ DQ\ RI WKH VWXGHQWVn SHUPDQHQW UHFRUGV 7KH VFRUHV PHUHO\ ZLOO EH XVHG WR FRPSDUH WKH DFKLHYHPHQW RI GLIIHUHQW JURXSV EDVHG RQ LQGLYLGXDO WHVW FKDQJHV 7KH VWXG\ ZLOO EH FRQGXFWHG XQGHU WKH VXSHUYLVLRQ RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ VWDII PHPEHUV RI WKH 2UDQJH &RXQW\ 3XEOLF 6FKRROV ZRXOG EH PRVW ZLOOLQJ WR DQVZHU DQ\ TXHVWLRQV \RX PD\ KDYH UHJDUGLQJ WKH JRDOV RU SURFHGXUHV RI WKLV VWXG\ ,I \RX DJUHH WR DOORZ \RXU FKLOG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKLV VWXG\ SOHDVH VLJQ DQG GDWH WKLV IRUP
PAGE 103

3OHDVH KDYH \RXU FKLOG UHWXUQ WKLV IRUP WR VFKRRO DV VRRQ DV SRVVLEOH 7KDQN \RX IRU \RXU WLPH DQG FRQVLGHUDWLRQ 6LQFHUHO\ 6XVDQ %HDWWLH rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 3DUHQW RI FKLOGnV QDPHf 3DUHQW VLJQDWXUH 'DWH

PAGE 104

'HDU 3DUHQW DP FXUUHQWO\ D GRFWRUDO FDQGLGDWH LQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DP LQ WKH SURFHVV RI FRQn GXFWLQJ D VWXG\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH HIIHFW RI SK\VLFDO WHVW LWHP PRGLILFDn WLRQV RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKLUG JUDGH VWXGHQWV 7KLV IRUP LV DVNLQJ SDUHQWV IRU WKHLU ZULWWHQ FRQVHQW WR KDYH WKHLU VRQ RU GDXJKWHU SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH VWXG\ 7KH VWXG\ ZLOO EH FRQGXFWHG ZLWKLQ WKH $ODFKXD &RXQW\ 6FKRRO 6\VWHP :H ZLOO EH DVNLQJ HDFK FKLOG WR WDNH D LWHP WHVW ZKLFK VKRXOG WDNH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ PLQXWHV 7KHUH ZLOO EH WZR WHVWV XWLOL]HG D VWDQGDUG IRUP DQG D PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ 7KHUH DUH QR GLVn FRPIRUWV RU ULVNV DQWLFLSDWHG IRU DQ\ RI WKH VWXGHQWV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKHUH ZLOO EH QR PRQHWDU\ FRPSHQVDWLRQ RIIHUHG 7KH WHVW VFRUHV REWDLQHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO UHPDLQ FRQILGHQWLDO DQG ZLOO QRW EH UHFRUGHG LQ DQ\ RI WKH VWXGHQWnV SHUPDQHQW UHFRUGV 7KH VFRUHV ZLOO EH PHUHO\ XVHG WR FRPSDUH WKH DFKLHYHPHQW RI GLIIHUHQW JURXSV EDVHG RQ LQGLYLGXDO WHVW PRGLILFDWLRQV $V HGXFDWRUV ZH DUH FRQWLQXDOO\ VWULYLQJ WR GLVFRYHU WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH ZD\ RI DVVHVVLQJ LQGLYLGXDO FKLOGUHQnV FRJQLWLYH DELOLWLHV ,W LV KRSHG WKDW WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO SURYLGH YDOXDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH WHVW WDNLQJ DELOLWLHV RI HOHPHQWDU\ DJHG FKLOGUHQ XQGHU GLIIHUHQW FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZRXOG EH PRVW ZLOOLQJ WR DQVZHU DQ\ TXHVWLRQV \RX PD\ KDYH UHJDUGLQJ WKH JRDOV RU SURFHGXUHV RI WKLV HIIRUW ,I \RX DJUHH WR

PAGE 105

DOORZ \RXU FKLOG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKLV VWXG\ SOHDVH VLJQ DQG GDWH WKLV IRUP 7KHUH ZLOO DOZD\V EH WKH RSWLRQ DYDLODEOH WR ZLWKGUDZ \RXU FRQVHQW IRU \RXU FKLOGnV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ DW DQ\ WLPH ZLWKRXW SUHMXGLFH 7KDQN \RX IRU \RXU WLPH DQG FRQVLGHUDWLRQ 6LQFHUHO\ 6XVDQ %HDWWLH rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 6LJQDWXUHV 6XEMHFW 'DWH :LWQHVV 'DWH 5HODWLRQVKLS LI RWKHU WKDQ 'DWH VXEMHFW 3ULQFLSDO ,QYHVWLJD 'DWH WRUnV QDPH DQG DGGUHVV

PAGE 106

$33(1',; & 6$03/( 7(67f§67$1'$5' ',5(&7,216 7KH OLVW RI ZRUGV LQ HDFK ER[ LV LQ DOSKDEHWLFDO RUGHU 5HPHPEHU WKDW PHDQV $%& RUGHUf &KRRVH WKH ZRUG WR JR LQ WKH EODQN WKDW ZLOO NHHS HDFK OLVW LQ DOSKDEHWLFDO RUGHU EDJ +' SDUW RUDQJH URDG r +' XQGHU +' HDUWK WHDFK +' URVH DEVHQW GRQNH\ JRDO QH[W OLJKW SDUN OHWWHU QHZ &' VQRZ &' FRUQ ZLGH &' NLQJ ]HEUD &' GHDG JLDQW VKLUW EUDLQ UXOHU ILHOG

PAGE 107

',5(&7,216 5HDG WKH VWRU\ LQ HDFK ER[ &KRRVH WKH EHVW DQVZHU IRU HDFK TXHVWLRQ 7KH EHH ELW WKH SXSS\ RQ KLV QRVH 7KH SXSS\ UDQ WR WKH GLVK RI ZDWHU +H SXW KLV QRVH LQ WKH ZDWHU :KR ELW WKH SXSS\" f§! WKH PDQ &' WKH FDW F]f WKH EHH f§L WKH GRJ :KHUH GLG WKH SXSS\ UXQ" FXG WR KLV PRWKHU f§! WR KLV GLVK RI ZDWHU &=' WR WKH ODNH &' WR D WUHH :KDW GLG WKH ZLWFK GR" &' EXPS LQWR D FORXG F f VLQJ D VRQJ &' VFDUH SHRSOH D ZLQ WKH UDFH :KHQ GR ZLWFKHV IO\ LQ WKH VN\" &' LQ WKH FORXGV Lf§! LQ WKH )DOO 2 RQ D EURRP Wf§L RYHU WKH PRRQ

PAGE 108

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ff

PAGE 109

,

PAGE 110

',5(&7,216 5HDG WKH VWRU\ DQG DQVZHU WKH TXHVWLRQ %RE DQG -LP ZHUH IRRWEDOO WHDP SRLQWV -LP $OWRJHWKHU KRZ %RE DQG -LP VFRUH" RQ WKH VDPH %RE VFRUHG SRLQWV PDQ\ SRLQWV GLG 7KHUH DUH ER\V LQ 0LVV 6PLWKnV FODVV 7KHUH DUH DOVR JLUOV LQ WKH FODVV +RZ PDQ\ FKLOGUHQ DUH LQ WKH FODVV DOWRJHWKHU" SRLQWV F FKLOGUHQ SRLQWV &8' FKLOGUHQ SRLQWV & FKLOGUHQ SRLQWV 2 FKLOGUHQ -RKQ FDXJKW ILVK 0LNH FDXJKW ILVK +RZ PDQ\ ILVK GLG WKH\ FDWFK LQ DOO" 6DOO\ ZHQW RQ D WULS DQG GURYH PLOHV +HU KXVEDQG GURYH PLOHV +RZ PDQ\ PLOHV GLG 6DOO\ DQG KHU KXVEDQG GULYH DOWRJHWKHU" ILVK ILVK ILVK ILVK PLOHV PLOHV PLOHV PLOHV

PAGE 111

$33(1',; 6$03/( 7(67f§02',),(' ',5(&7,216 7KH OLVW RI ZRUGV LQ HDFK ER[ LV LQ DOSKDEHWLFDO RUGHU 5HPHPEHU WKDW PHDQV $%& RUGHUf &KRRVH WKH ZRUG WR JR LQ WKH EODQN WKDW ZLOO NHHS HDFK OLVW LQ DOSKDEHWLFDO RUGHU EUDLQ ILHOG

PAGE 112

',5(&7,216 5HDG WKH VWRU\ LQ HDFK ER[ &KRRVH WKH EHVW DQVZHU IRU HDFK TXHVWLRQ 7KH KLV QRVH GLVK RI LQ WKH ZDWHU EHH ELW WKH SXSS\ RQ 7KH SXSS\ UDQ WR WKH +H SXW KLV QRVH :KR ELW WKH SXSS\" &' WKH PDQ Ff§! WKH FDW &' WKH EHH &' WKH GRJ :KHUH GLG WKH SXSS\ UXQ" KLV PRWKHU KLV GLVK RI ZDWHU WKH ODNH D WUHH ,Q WKH )DOO ZLWFKHV IO\ WKURXJK WKH VN\ RQ EURRPV 2QFH D ZLWFK EXPSHG LQWR D FORXG +HU EURRP EURNH DQG VKH IHOO WR WKH JURXQG :KDW GLG WKH ZLWFK GR" F f EXPS LQWR D FORXG &' VLQJ D VRQJ f§A VFDUH SHRSOH ZLQ WKH UDFH :KHQ GR ZLWFKHV IO\ LQ WKH VN\" &' LQ WKH FORXGV &' LQ WKH )DOO f§L RQ D EURRP f§A RYHU WKH PRRQ

PAGE 113

',5(&7,216 5HDG WKHVH SUREOHPV )LJXUH RXW WKH ULJKW DQVZHU 7KHUH ZHUH ER\V DQG JLUOV DW D ODNH VZLPPLQJ +RZ PDQ\ FKLOGUHQ ZHUH VZLPPLQJ .QUr 2 -HQQLIHU ZRQ 7RP ZRQ JDPHV JDPHV GLG WKH\ ZLQ +RZ PDQ\ LQ DOO" FKLOGUHQ FKLOGUHQ FKLOGUHQ FKLOGUHQ JDPHV JDPHV JDPHV JDPHV 7KH OLEUDU\ KDG 7KH OLEUDU\ ERXJKW +RZ PDQ\ ERRNV DUH OLEUDU\ QRZ" ERRNV PRUH ERRNV LQ WKH 6DOO\ PDGH FRRNLHV )UHG PDGH FRRNLHV +RZ PDQ\ FRRNLHV GLG 6DOO\ DQG )UHG PDNH DOWRJHWKHU" ERRNV ERRNV ERRNV ERRNV FRRNLHV FRRNLHV FRRNLHV FRRNLHV

PAGE 114

6XEWUDFW F & &

PAGE 115

',5(&7,216 5HDG WKH VWRU\ DQG DQVZHU WKH TXHVWLRQ %RE DQG -LP ZHUH RQ WKH VDPH IRRWEDOO WHDP %RE VFRUHG SRLQWV -LP VFRUHG SRLQWV $OWRJHWKHU KRZ PDQ\ SRLQWV GLG %RE DQG -LP VFRUH" R SRLQWV 2 SRLQWV &8' SRLQWV GR SRLQWV -RKQ FDXJKW ILVK 0LNH FDXJKW ILVK +RZ PDQ\ ILVK GLG WKH\ FDWFK LQ DOO" ILVK f§f ILVK 2 ILVK ILVK 7KHUH DUH ER\V LQ 0LVV 6PLWKnV FODVV 7KHUH DUH DOVR JLUOV LQ WKH FODVV +RZ PDQ\ FKLOGUHQ DUH LQ WKH FODVV DOWRJHWKHU" &=' FKLOGUHQ &=' FKLOGUHQ 6DOO\ ZHQW RQ D WULS DQG GURYH PLOHV +HU KXVEDQG GURYH PLOHV +RZ PDQ\ PLOHV GLG 6DOO\ DQG KHU KXVEDQG GULYH DOWRJHWKHU" &O' PLOHV &' PLOHV f§L PLOHV Ff§! PLOHV

PAGE 116

$33(1',; ( 0($1 3(5)250$1&( 6&25(6 %< &$7(*25< 5$&( $1' 6(; Qf [ 7RWDO 6FRUH Qf [ 6XEWHVW 6FRUH 7RWDO ([DPSOH %ROGIDFH $QVZHU %XEEOH +LHUDUFK\ /LQH /HQJWK 6WDQGDUG 0RGLILHG 6WG 0RG 6WG 0RG 6WG 0RG 6WG 0RG 6WG 0RG 1RUPDO 0 % f f : f f ) % f f : f f /' 0 % f f : f f ) % f f f§ f§ f§ f§ : f f (+ 0 % f f : f f ) % f f f§ f§ f§ : f f (05 0 % f f : f f ) % f f : f f

PAGE 117

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 6XVDQ %HDWWLH ZDV ERUQ LQ *HQHYD 1HZ
PAGE 118

6KH HQUROOHG DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD WR SXUVXH DQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHH LQ OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHV +HU PLQRU DUHDV LQFOXGHG HDUO\ DVVHVVPHQW DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQVXSHUYLVLRQ 6KH KRSHV WR JDLQ HPSOR\PHQW DV DQ HGXFDWLRQDO GLDJQRVWLFLDQ LQ D FKLOGUHQnV KRVSLWDO RU VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ DGPLQLVWUDWRU LQ D ODUJH XUEDQ VFKRRO V\VWHP

PAGE 119

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

PAGE 120

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

PAGE 121

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ f ff r fff $& 0O OmO O_m0


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EPZGP7IUH_JW6PCF INGEST_TIME 2017-07-12T20:50:49Z PACKAGE AA00002181_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES