The influence of effort and self concept on the outcome of psychometric testing and remedial intervention for reading disabled students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research related to Reading Disabilities has generally focused on assessment and remedial efforts in relation to the core deficit of phonological processing.A smaller body of research has investigated factors other than reading skills, per se, that influence assessment and remediation, such as self-esteem.Moreover, there is no published research that addresses the issue of degree of applied effort by participants and the influence this has on assessment results or the conclusions drawn about remedial outcomes.The present study was designed to fill this gap in the research by incorporating into the pre-and post-test batteries an objective measure of effort.The goal, using a sample of 31 students ranging in age from 10 to 16 years old, was to determine, a) the percentage of participants who were applying sub-optimal effort on pre-test, post-test or both; b) the influence of sub-optimal performance on pre-and post-test scores; and c) the relationship between effort and self-esteem.Results demonstrated that a relatively high percentage of participants, 46.66%, were performing with sub-optimal levels of effort.It wa s further noted, despite an overall improvement in reading from pre-to post-testing (Wilk's Lamba = .49,F(4,25) = 6.48, p < .001),level of effort did not appear to have an influence on the attained scores on the reading and self-esteem measures (Wilk's Lamba = .91,F(4, 25) = 0.60, p <.67).It was suggested that many of the participants scored well on the measure of effort in an attempt to bolster self-perception by doing well on a measure that looks difficult.In effect, they were doing well on the effort test as a means of avoiding "looking stupid".Qualitative observations suggested that many of the participants, regardless of performance on the effort test, were not effortful in their attempts to complete the measures of reading used at pre-and post-testing.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".