Talk:Swanson, Nolan and Pelham Teacher and Parent Rating Scale

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Swanson, Nolan and Pelham Teacher and Parent Rating Scale is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Untitled[edit]

This is a great start! I would suggest looking at the language about reliability and validity -- current standards are the reliability and validity are not intrinsic properties of a test, but rather characteristics of how a score worked in a particular sample. As the field gets more experience with scores across a range of people and settings, then we have a better sense of whether the scores behavior is fairly stable, or whether some of these factors actually change (i.e., statistically moderate) score performance in important ways.

Here's sample language that I have seen making the same point when people are writing articles for peer reviewed publication in academic journals: "Please review the language of your paper carefully to be certain that references to reliability, validity, and other psychometric terms conform to the recommendations in the 1999 AERA, APA, NCME Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. As examples, be sure when you discuss reliability that reliability refers to test scores, not tests, and that validity refers to the validity of test score interpretations—again, not to tests. The changes in wording in the 1999 Standards are far more than cosmetic and are intended to reinforce and promote a change in thinking about such concepts that fermented in the profession for several decades before implementation."

It would be excellent to provide links to any online documentation about these standards to help other Wikipedia editors understand the point. I don't have the links handy, and I am about to go teach.

I think that this is a good prototype, though, and if people emulate it, then the derivative pages will be close to the mark anyway.

Thanks for building!

163.152.3.31 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the suggestions. I agree that the concepts of reliability and validity should be made in the context of samples, and not the test itself. I have made the changes. Thanks! Ongmianli (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Childpsych19, Jlshelto. Peer reviewers: Childpsych19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]