|
| |
O.A.T. C.E.R.E.A.L.
The OVERALL
ACHIEVEMENT
TEST:
CUMULATIVE
EVALUATION
REFLECTING
EDUCATIONAL
ABILITY
LEVELS
(sometimes referred to as simply: OAT-CEREAL) was created by
Dr. John
Willis to illustrate one aspect of the almost total
mindlessness of grade equivalents for the reporting of educational
test data. The apparent clarity and simplicity of these statistics
are deceptive traps for the unwary. At first glance, grade
equivalents seem to reflect, with a commendable return to basics, a
student's actual functioning level in a given subject area. However,
since grade equivalents are simple transformations of raw scores, a
student may in fact do no work at all on the grade level reported.
The child might do unusually accurate work below the reported
level-or the opposite.
Take, for example, Ralph, who tends to be very careless with
simple computation and has a slight tendency to confuse the numbers,
6 and 9. Consequently, on the OAT-CEREAL Math test, he failed items
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, and obtained a raw score of 4 for a grade
equivalent of 4.5. This despite the fact that he had no difficulty
whatsoever with items 8, 10, 11, 12, all far above a fourth grade
curriculum.
Math
|
|
1. 6 + 2
|
5. 329 ÷ 8
|
9. 3.964 ÷ 2.91
|
|
|
|
2. 9 - 6
|
6. 3571 ÷ 63
|
10. 3x + 2y = 8 Find x
|
|
|
|
3. 43 - 19
|
7. 2/9 + 5/9
|
11. factor: x2 + 2xy + y2
|
|
|
|
4. 26 x 4
|
8. 7/12 - 2/3
|
12. …3x2dx
|
|
Math Normative Data
|
Raw Score
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
Grade Equivalent
|
1.2
|
2.3
|
3.4
|
4.5
|
5.5
|
6.5
|
7.5
|
8.5
|
9.6
|
10.7
|
11.8
|
12.9
|
Reading
Bunny, an otherwise very competent reader, still confuses the
letters, t and f. This unfortunate error caused her to hilariously
mispronounce eight of the twelve words on the OAT - CEREAL Oral
Reading Test and obtain a grade equivalent of 4.5, although she read
(and understood) without difficulty the words, cacophony and
polyandry.
Oral Reading
|
|
1. cat
|
5. plastics
|
9. remonstrate
|
|
|
|
2. sink
|
6. debatable
|
10. readministration
|
|
|
|
3. crashing
|
7. trough
|
11. cacophony
|
|
|
|
4. touches
|
8. magistrate
|
12. polyandry
|
|
Reading Normative Data
|
Raw Score
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
Grade Equivalent
|
1.2
|
2.3
|
3.4
|
4.5
|
5.5
|
6.5
|
7.5
|
8.5
|
9.6
|
10.7
|
11.8
|
12.9
|
The point -- obviously enough -- is that, while grade level
designations of test items or groups of items may be meaningful and
even helpful from time to time, especially with criterion-referenced
measures, grade equivalents of raw scores not only fail to present
any meaningful information but may in fact serve to convey
impressions that are entirely contrary to fact. For normative
purposes, it is therefore much wiser to compare student's test
performance to that of the student's peers through standard scores,
percentiles, stanines, normal curve equivalents, or similar ranking
or deviation measures.
"Statistics don't lie, but statisticians do."
For more information, see:
- International Reading Association (1982).
Misuse of grade equivalents: resolution passed by the Delegates
Assembly of the IRA, April 1981. Reading Teacher, January, p.
464.
-
- Lyman, H. B. (1991). Test scores and what they
mean. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. pp. 112-113.
-
- Reynolds, C. R. Conceptual and technical
problems in learning disability diagnosis, (Chapter 24) in
Handbook of Psychological and Educational Assessment of Children:
Intelligence and Achievement (Reynolds & Kamphaus) (1990)
Guilford Press
-
- Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children,
rev. & updated 3rd ed. San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler,
Publisher. pp. 20-21.
-
- Willis, J.O. & Dumont, R.P. (1998). Guide
to identification of Learning disabilities, 1998 NY State edition.
Acton, MA: Copley. pp. 69-70, 222-223.
-
A variation of the OAT CEREAL first appeared in the New Hampshire
Personnel and Guidance Journal (1977). page 9.
As you can see, John's been at this for a while!
|