Can Percentiles Replace Raw Scores in the Statistical Analysis of Test Data?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational and psychological testing textbooks typically warn of the inappropriateness of performing arithmetic operations and statistical analysis on percentiles instead of raw scores. This seems inconsistent with the well-established finding that transforming scores to ranks and using nonparametric methods often improves the validity and power of significance tests for nonnormal distributions. This study compared Student’s t test performed on raw scores, on the ranks of scores, and on percentiles of these scores obtained from larger populations for normal and various skewed and symmetric nonnormal distributions. Using percentiles instead of raw scores protected the Type I error rate of t tests, like using ranks instead of raw scores, for all distributions studied. Using percentiles markedly increased the power of t tests for skewed distributions, more so than using ranks, and percentiles were nearly as effective as ranks for symmetric distributions. These findings are relevant to experimental designs involving test scores and other measures when both raw scores and percentiles are available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it