Discussion 2: Blog: Accuracy Standards

A2 Valid Information: According to Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, and Caruthers (2011) state that Validity in its various emphases is an integrating theme across all the Accuracy Standards. Therefore, valid information refers to the accuracy of assessment, whether it measures what it is supposed to measure. There are three ways in which validity can be measured. To have confidence that a test is valid and therefore the inferences we make based on the test scores are valid all three kinds of validity evidence should be considered (Fairbairn, 2009). However, being aware of the basic tenets of validity as you construct your classroom assessments, and you should be able to help parents interpret scores for the standardized exams.

 A3 Reliable Information: According to Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, and Caruthers (2011) state that reliability is defined as the consistency of information and the information that is collected and is crucial to the justification of validity. Reliability refers to the extent to which assessments are consistent (Fairbairn, 2009).  For example, having reliable cars that start every time we need it. Therefore, educators will strive to have reliable, consistent instruments to measure student achievement (Golafshani, 2003).  According to Golafshani (2003) states that another measure of reliability is the internal consistency of the items. For example, if you create a test to measure students’ ability to solve quadratic equations, then perhaps the student will get it right. Although reliability enemy can be random error and freedom from the random error, it seems to be equally important for qualitative and quantitative information summaries (Yarbrough, Shulha, & Hopson, 2011).

 Reference:

Fairbairn, S. B. (2009). Inclusive achievement testing for linguistically and culturally diverse test takers: Essential considerations for test developers and decision makers. National Council on Measurement in Education 28 (1), 10-24.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8 (4),, pp. 597-606.

Yarbrough, D., Shulha, L., & Hopson, R. C. (2011). The Program Evaluation Standards. Los Angeles: Sage.

                       Discussion 2: Blog: Process and Procedure Standards

U5- Relevant Information: is data that can be applied to solve a problem. This is a particular issue when determining the format and content of an entity's financial statements, since the proper layout and level of detail of information can adjust the opinions of users regarding the future direction of a business of school district (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). According to Mereoiu, Abercrombie, Murray (2016) states that Individualized Education Program (IEP) is the roadmap that helps educators and families drive the education of students with disabilities, improve outcomes, and fulfill each child’ potential. Professional norms and experience, the relevant special education literature lacks a systematic case law foundation (Butera & Brenda, 1998). There the contents of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) become relevant in such cases. There educators must examine IEPs to establish the relationship between misbehavior and disability (Zirkel, 2016).

U6- Meaningful Processes and Products: is when they are perceived to have significance and value for stakeholders and designing activities to assure both accuracy and meaningfulness can help stakeholder to a better understanding the complexity of their program’s (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). According to Johns, Crowley and Guetzloe (2007) states that IEPs team determines the individual effectiveness of a level system for a student, the team must determine whether the student is making satisfactory progress through the level system. However, the IEPs meeting that includes the stakeholders and parents determine the outcome of the student’s future (Scott, 2011). It is essential in order to achieve positive outcomes when both professionals or stakeholders and parents find themselves in a context in which collaboration includes decision-making and communication skills in a short period of time.

References:

Beverley, J., & Crowley, P. &. (2007). Planning the IEP for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Focus on Exceptional Children Vol 34, 1-12.

Butera, G., & Brenda, K. M. (1998). A Statewide Study of FAPE and School Discipline Policies. The Journal Of Special Education Vol 32, 108-114.

Mereoiu, M., Abercrombie, S., & Murray, M. (2016). Structured Intervention as a Tool to Shift Views of Parents-Professional Partnerships: Impact on Attitudes Toward the IEP. Exceptionality Education International Vol. 26 Issue 1,, 36-52.

Scott, L. (2011). Teacher Self-Efficacy with Teaching Students to Lead IEP Meetings: A Correlation Study on Administrator Support. Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 5, 9-20.

Yarbrough, D., Shulha, L., Hopson, R., & Caruthers, F. (2011). The Program Evaluation Standards. Los Angeles: Sage.

Zirkel, P. &. (2016). Which Procedural Parts of the IEP Process are the Most Judicially Vulnerable. Exceptional Children Vol 83 (2) DOI: 10117/001440296651849, 219-235.