Inthe society today we anticipate people to meet personal and socialduties. We count on them to show culturally standard behaviors androles that are regular with adaptive responses. In the 19thcentury, health workers started diagnosing people with mentaldisorder, which depended on subjective or unsystematic summaries ofthe age of a person, standard coordination, the full range of yearsthey had been behind in school and physiognomy. Many individualsidentified with mental retardation were not considered in the earlyinterpretation of that prognosis. Intelligence test as used in placesof adaptive behavior at the turn of the century. Their primaryemphasis was more on moral conduct and pragmatics. Evaluation of thebehavior which is adaptive became an indispensable part of thediagnostic nomenclature for mental retardation. Adaptive behavior isdescribed as significant limitations in all individual’seffectiveness in meeting the requirements of maturation, learning,personal independence, or social maturity which can be anticipatedfor his or her age stage and cultural group, as determined by medicalevaluations and, typically, uniform scales.
Keywords: Code, Synthesis of Evidence of Reliability, Synthesis of Evidence ofValidity, psychoeducational, mental retardation
FairTesting Practices in Education
TheCode guidelines those who Have specialist in the field of psychology.The obligation of the professionals in psychology is to give and usetests that are equal to everybody irrespective of age, disability,and religion (Willhaus, Burleson, Palaganas & Jeffries, 2014).The main concerns for tests are to be confident that they areentirely fair to those who are taking them. Individuals taking thetest should be given similar opportunities to show what they may ormay not know (Urbina,2014).Likewise, the person is also tested on how well he or she maycomplete the test. The fairness of the test is to make sure thatevery person taking it is conversant with its features and thecontents (Kornhaber,Griffith, & Tyler,2014).Further, the integrity of it involves the appropriate reporting ofthe outcome in a fair manner. The person taking the test needs tohave an insight of the intention of the test. When testing, fairnessis an important factor to be put into consideration. Similarly, it isnot an isolated factor but embedded into the testing process.
Whenanalyzing the Code, it is found that it has encompassed broad areassuch as admissions and educational assessment, together with aneducational diagnosis and not forgetting placement of the student(McLaren,2015).Itis, therefore, significant to have an understanding that the Code ofFair Testing Practices does not involve testing during employment,certification testing and any other type of testing that do notrequire education field. Furthermore, the core code test given byteachers to their students is not included in the Test. If teachersare trying to obtain individual data, they will also need to followthe procedure and the set guidelines.
Thecode covers the duties of people who formulated it individual thosetaking it. The people who formulated the test are mostlyinstitution-based or researchers who form the test to set better thepolicies. Individuals who use the test have roles such as makingdecisions based on test scores, commissioning test developmentservices, and much more. In some circumstances, the people who setthe test and those who sit for it go beyond their typical roles. Forexample, an educational agency instructs the development of servicesrelated to the test, sets the guidelines that monitor the improvementprocess of the test, and makes decisions based on it (Irvine& Kyllonen, 2013).The creators of the test have the ability to improve or change thecurrent test, and in doing so, they must follow the proper guidelineswithin the Code. The code of fair practice in education gives thosewho are tested and those who create it the proper guidance andassistance they require.
TheCode is not meant to be obligatory, ultimate and on some occasionsnot applicable to all the condition. It is expected to facilitatesuccess instead of judging the individuals who are taking the testbased on their performance.
Thereare four vital areas of the Code, and they are broken down asfollows: (1) developing and selecting the appropriate test, (2)administering and scoring it, (3) interpretation and reporting of theresults of the test and (4) notifying those who take the test.Furthermore, it is in agreement with materials such as the APA, amongothers. Similarly, it does not require adjustment or increase ofadditional assessment. The main aim of the Code is not to be held asmeaningful and relevant to the parties involved, but eachprofessional is encouraged to obligate his or herself to impartialityin the testing and to safeguard the privileges of those who take thetest (Vernon,2014).Its primary intention is to make sure that commitment takes place.There are some simple procedures to be followed when it comes toinforming the person taking the test. The outlined procedures shouldbe consistent throughout the testing process.
TheJoint Committee, which deals with Testing Practices was the body thatprepared the test. Furthermore, it was also achieved jointly by otherindividuals in the occupation. The Joint Committee have tasks such asacting in the interest of the public and improving the quality oftesting. The elements are intended at evaluating functionalindependence and adaptive functioning within the individual`s school,home, community settings, and employment.
Element1. The Purpose
Thetest’s primary function is to analyze the plan of a program. Itconsists of 14 categories which involve behavior which is adaptiveand eight which includes the action of maladaptive in nature.
Itsprimary focus is on most of the issues, which mark theinterpretations of the scores of adaptive behavior challenging. Theyinclude physical disability and the use of adaptive equipment theuse of communication methods, which are an alternative tasks, whichare not appropriate to age absence of a chance due to the safety ofthe environment and cognitive aptitude to comprehend socialanticipations for execution behaviors.Those people are ratedaccording to what they do other than praising them for the thingsthey thought they might consider or turn down. If the function, whichis independent, is to be believed regarding the environments andsocial expectations’ context that affects the function of theperson tested, then the scores without putting conservation on thechance and communal anticipation for an individual with a physicaldisability could be challenging to diagnose a mental disorder.
Thecrucial part of mental retardation is an adaptive behavior. Mentaldisorder is identified regarding the number of elements that includeawareness and understanding of the surroundings, and the capabilityto get involved in regular, social and economic life. It accounts foradaptive behavior in the society if a person can fulfill those roles.
Thereforethe element is relevant in measuring mental retardation. Furthermore,adaptive behavior has proven to be accurate since it is correct andhas a quality standardization.
Theseare structured interviews and checklist that are used by the personadministering the test. An individual who is conducting this test canchoose the best fits him or her 5approriately. Numerous additionsthat have been incorporated into to the test. It is apparent that theselection of a test’s method determines the number of factorspresent. It be, therefore, imperative to find direct implicationsrequired to outline the restrictions to be observed in a given area
Element5. Technical Quality
Synthesisof Evidence of Reliability
TheCode of good testing Practice in education was publicly done on 2,180individuals the samples reflected the 1990 U.S. Censuscharacteristics. There is an excellent proof of the dependability andlegitimacy of the Code. It has also been recognized to be aconsistent measure of problems associated with behaviors. The test issignificantly connected to other adaptive measures of behaviors andis immensely predictive of placements in different service settingsand arrangements. The main advantages of the test are that itsgeneral cluster and sub-scale performance can be evaluated, enablinga polished analysis of specific domains of functioning.
Synthesisof Evidence of Validity
Thereis some proof of effectiveness in construct when it comes to thetest. It is inadequate and derived from the test authors. However, itis imperative to have a clear view of the effectiveness of the test’ssubscales, and scores of the cluster in relating to the realproficiencies and in forecasting real-life change needs to bedetermined. The test’s constructive cogency was formed throughcomparing the scores on the measures of later age and to CognitiveScale. However, for every case to evaluate any decisions validityresearch is imperative.
Element6. Test Items and Format
Intesting the code, it possesses feebleness together with strengths.The strengths are positioned on the helpfulness and exactitude of a standardized reference tool. The time allowed for the administrationit is key weak points. To direct a version which is full in scale andthe legitimacy of the information that the individual provides up tosixty minutes is all right. The test does identify practical limitsof the test taker, and it does translate it into therapeutic goals.
Thetest is provided in an interview which is structured, or it can beissued based on the age of the test giver, and it can also be carriedout by use of a checklist. Likewise, the cognitive skills of the testtaker are measured by directly testing him or her. Most of the skillsbeing tested for are not observable in an other-other place apartfrom of the examining room.That is because the person conducting thetest is incapable of having a direct link between the person takingthe test and the one who is given. The scoring of the test foradaptive behavior has number ranging from 0-3.0 = Never or rarelyperforms task, one = Does work but not well, two = Does function verywell, up to 3 = Does work very well
Somefactors are imperative to be put into consideration when caring outthe test such as time is to be left blank, only one answer is needed,individual average daily performance is considered, and the resultshould not be analyzed excessively.
Element7. Test Procedures and Materials
Themethods used in assessment needs to be customized according to theneeds of the individual taking the test. In psychoeducationalevaluations, there are regular evaluation and procedures commonlyused that are provided to schools and teachers of special education.That offers them the chance to document and measure weakness anddeficits in visual processing, academic achievements that arerequired by students of special needs and social skills (Brown,Bull, & Pendlebury, 2013). Thetest is free of any potentially offensive content and free of anyfoul language.
Element8. Modifications and Accommodations
Thetest type is suitably adapted to help persons with incapacities.Forms provided are concluded by a checklist process done by the giverof the test. In that way, the people taking the test are given a justand equivalent opportunity to finish it in ways suitable to them. Thetest is appropriate for anyone irrespective the particular needs oftheirs
Element9. Group Differences
Theprocess of sampling should be random to give each an equal chance ofbeing selected. Gathering of Intelligence tests should be as samples,which are stratified if necessary. In that method, the results arecollected in a demographical area (Campbell& Stanley, 2015).That would involve all of the people who fit into the relevantcharacteristics of the test that is to be administered. Since thetest is done independently, no significant difference has occurredwith different cultures tested.
Thereview of all the literature on intellectual functioning assessmentshows that the development rate across the life span of theindividual is different. In most instances, these approximations areactual during the review of mental functioning. However, that canonly be made from the test that was administered recently. Manyresearchers have found that the rate of intelligence in a wholepopulation upsurges at the rate of an estimated 3 IQ points in everydecade, which then gives rise to the same error of measurement formost inclusive tests for intelligence (Rindermann& Pichelmann, 2015).If a test has standards older than 10 to 12 years of age, it thencould yield an exaggerated score, or it could lead to thecontradiction of services to substantial numbers of people who couldhave been qualified for them. Test dealing with intelligence arecomplicated, and they also need many dimensions to construct them. Itis, therefore, imperative that tests used should be morecomprehensive and assess more than one cognitive attribute. Thetechnical adequacy together with the sampling links directly to thecompression length of the test. When a test is done briefly, it willcertainly be compromised, and the quality will not be accurate.
Itis also required that the examiner needs to have the right trainingand skills needed to carry out the test accurately. All therequirement of the publisher should be meet by the examiner.Furthermore, the examiner should have the skills and knowledge toexamine all clients of different characteristics. The examiners arenot only required to be competent but also able to interpret the testresults. In general, they should have skills and competencies to workwith people of all backgrounds, ages, and exceptionality withoutexperiencing any difficulty.
Mentalretardation diagnosis and composite scores from the test are to beused together for effective evaluation. A suitable part score isutilized in the place where the validity of a composite intelligentquotient, which is higher than 70, is in doubt. Noteworthy andexpressive differences among instrument’s part score indicateevidence of compromised validity. A suitable components’ score isbetter to be represented by the examiner in such cases to give anoverall level of mental functioning. However, if that dos do notprove to be valid, then the application of other methods is essentialto support the diagnosis of mental retardation.
Inoverall terms, most of the health workers such as clinicians needdata obtained from IQ test, and standardized adaptive behavior scalesto make an appropriate diagnosis of mental retardation. That aidsthem in knowing better the response information to determine lack ofadaptive behavior deficits. Furthermore, the data aids in thebehavior development of the person who takes the test. The Code is atest, which was developed well, and it measures the adaptive behaviordemonstrated by the individual taking the test. There are still someprecincts associated with the test such as the absence of provisionsto the measurement of the skills by direct observation, but atpresent, the examiner does not want to interfere with the testtakers’ life.
TheCode of Fair Testing Practices in Education has been assessednumerous times, and it has demonstrated to be a valid method fortesting adaptive behavior. Recommendations to be made are (1) peoplewho are identified with mental retardation need improved measures and(2) scholars can add areas in the test that cover social cognitiveprocesses. Furthermore, there is a need for more funding to aid inanalyzing adaptive behavior deficits among people who are found withthe retardation of the mind.
Brown,G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessingstudent learning in higher education.Routledge.
Campbell,D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimentaland quasi-experimental designs for research.Ravenio Books.
Irvine,S. H., & Kyllonen, P. C. (Eds.). (2013). Itemgeneration for test development.Routledge.
Kornhaber,M. L., Griffith, K., & Tyler, A. (2014). It is not education byzip code anymore–but what is it? Conceptions of equity under theCommon Core. Educationpolicy analysis archives,22,4-7.
McLaren,P. (2015). Lifein schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundationsof education.Routledge.
Rindermann,H., & Pichelmann, S. (2015). Future cognitive ability: US IQprediction until 2060 based on NAEP. PloSone,10(10),e0138412.
Urbina,S. (2014). Essentialsof psychological testing.John Wiley & Sons.
Vernon,P. E. (2014). Intelligenceand Cultural Environment (Psychology Revivals).Routledge.
Willhaus,J., Burleson, G., Palaganas, J., & Jeffries, P. (2014). AuthoringSimulations for High-Stakes Student Evaluation. ClinicalSimulation In Nursing, 10(4),e177-e182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.11.006