Sentences with phrase «group differences in test scores»

You guessed it: the media interpreted the Steele and Aronson results as meaning that group differences in test scores are illusions that will evaporate if only we can get students to ignore the stereotypes that hold down their performance.

Not exact matches

The small increase in the high - dose group did not translate into beneficial effects because authors found no difference between the three study groups for changes in spine, average total - hip, average femoral neck or total - body bone mineral density, trabecular bone score, muscle mass or sit - to - stand tests.

In the main study group, exposure to anesthesia for surgery before the age of 4 was associated with an average difference of 0.41 percent lower school grades and 0.97 percent lower IQ test scores.

The absolute differences in scores were hardly dramatic: On average, the literary group outperformed the popular group by about two questions (out of 36) on the RMET test, and missed one fewer question (out of 18) on the DANVA2 - AF.

Murray's earlier books — Losing Ground in 1984, on welfare policy, and The Bell Curve (with Richard Herrnstein) in 1994, on the significance of differences in intelligence as measured by intelligence tests — aroused controversy, because, implicitly or explicitly, they focused attention on black Americans, who play a disproportionate role in welfare policy, and as a group score lower than whites on IQ tests.

The smallest differences after two years were observed in New York City, where the combined test scores of African - American students attending private schools were 4.3 percentile points higher than those of the control group.

We compare the test scores of students in each of the seven categories, taking into account differences in the students» socioeconomic characteristics, including parent schooling, self - reported household income, the number of non-school books in the home, and the quality of the peer groups (calculated by averaging family background and home resources for all students in the classroom).

Looking at earlier test scores and demographic characteristics, we find no statistically significant differences between the lotteried - in and lotteried - out groups.

By year four, there was no statistically significant difference in math test scores between students who remained in private schools and the matched comparison group.

Scores for 17 - year - olds, the third age group tested by NAEP, are a point or two higher than they were in the 1970s but the difference is not statistically significant.

... Educators 4 Excellence, a teachers group that advocates the use of student test scores in evaluations, called for union and district teachers to quickly resolve their differences.

Our school profiles now include important information in addition to test scores — factors that make a big difference in how children experience school, such as how much a school helps students improve academically, how well a school supports students from different socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups, and whether or not some groups of students are disproportionately affected by the school's discipline and attendance policies.

Few differences existed across groups in 9th grade, but by the end of 10th grade, students» test scores, academic grade point averages, and progress to graduation tended to be better for the students in programs of study (i.e., treatment students) than for control / comparison students.

The achievement gap, as it is usually reported, is NOT the difference in achievement test scores between two groups of students.

Results of grouped t tests and Mann - Whitney U tests to show t or z values, degrees of freedom, and p values for the differences in the changes in scores from baseline to follow up between the control and intervention group

Grouped t tests were used to compare the mean change in scores in the control and intervention groups where the differences were normally distributed (ECBI intensity score, SDQ total score, PSI parent child interaction, and parent domains), and Mann - Whitney U tests for the mean change in scores in the two groups where the differences were not normally distributed (ECBI problem score, SDQ conduct, hyperactivity, emotional, peer and prosocial scales, GHQ somatic anxiety, social, depression and total scores, PSI difficult child domain and total score, and SES).

Results of grouped t tests and Mann - Whitney U tests to show t or z values, degrees of freedom, and p values for the significant differences in the changes in scores between the control and intervention group

In tests of the main study hypotheses, the experimental group showed a significant decrease in attachment anxiety after the online program, t (25) = 4.69, p <.001, d = 1.03, but no decrease in attachment avoidance, t (25) = -0.96, p =.35, d = 0.19, and there was no significant difference between the two study groups on either change in anxiety scores, controlling for baseline avoidance, F (1, 47) = 0.39, p =.54, η2p =.008, or change in avoidance scores, controlling for baseline anxiety, F (1, 47) = 0.49, p =.49, η2p =.010, from pre-test to post-tesIn tests of the main study hypotheses, the experimental group showed a significant decrease in attachment anxiety after the online program, t (25) = 4.69, p <.001, d = 1.03, but no decrease in attachment avoidance, t (25) = -0.96, p =.35, d = 0.19, and there was no significant difference between the two study groups on either change in anxiety scores, controlling for baseline avoidance, F (1, 47) = 0.39, p =.54, η2p =.008, or change in avoidance scores, controlling for baseline anxiety, F (1, 47) = 0.49, p =.49, η2p =.010, from pre-test to post-tesin attachment anxiety after the online program, t (25) = 4.69, p <.001, d = 1.03, but no decrease in attachment avoidance, t (25) = -0.96, p =.35, d = 0.19, and there was no significant difference between the two study groups on either change in anxiety scores, controlling for baseline avoidance, F (1, 47) = 0.39, p =.54, η2p =.008, or change in avoidance scores, controlling for baseline anxiety, F (1, 47) = 0.49, p =.49, η2p =.010, from pre-test to post-tesin attachment avoidance, t (25) = -0.96, p =.35, d = 0.19, and there was no significant difference between the two study groups on either change in anxiety scores, controlling for baseline avoidance, F (1, 47) = 0.39, p =.54, η2p =.008, or change in avoidance scores, controlling for baseline anxiety, F (1, 47) = 0.49, p =.49, η2p =.010, from pre-test to post-tesin anxiety scores, controlling for baseline avoidance, F (1, 47) = 0.39, p =.54, η2p =.008, or change in avoidance scores, controlling for baseline anxiety, F (1, 47) = 0.49, p =.49, η2p =.010, from pre-test to post-tesin avoidance scores, controlling for baseline anxiety, F (1, 47) = 0.49, p =.49, η2p =.010, from pre-test to post-test.

However, when tested with the three group severity variable a group difference in PSI scores did emerge F (2, 942) = 7.71, p <.001.

Mean group differences were compared via t tests, and differences in rates of clinically significant CBCL T scores were compared with χ2 analyses.