Sentences with phrase «scale scores below»

Achievement: Student groups currently scoring below benchmark (scale scores below 750 on current state tests) will be expected to close the gap to 750 by 25 percent within 5 years.

Not exact matches

Check out the 20 best small cities for starting a business in the U.S., based on WalletHub's rankings (the city's rankings in each of the three categories are below, along with a total score on a 100 - point scale):

None of the subjects had full - blown PTSD at the time of the test; the highest score on the symptom scale, 39, was just below the cutoff for a PTSD diagnosis.

Students who practiced the Transcendental Meditation program showed significant increases in math and English scale scores and performance level scores over a one - year period.A significant portion of the meditating students — 41 percent — showed a gain of at least one performance level in math, compared to 15 percent of the non-meditating students in the control group.Among the students with the lowest levels of academic performance, «below basic» and «far below basic,» the meditating students showed a significant improvement in overall academic achievement compared to students in the control group, which showed only a slight gain.

Score yourself against the statements below using the following scale: 1 Never, 2 Rarely, 3 Sometimes, 4 Often, and 5 Always

Foods that are low on the glycemic index with scores of 55 or below aren't as likely to cause your blood sugar levels to spike as foods high on the GI scale with scores of 70 or above.

To know how much it scores on my beauty scale, go through my Elle 18 Color Burst Lipstick Spice Ginger Review below.

If a publication assigned a score to the review, it is listed below (converted to a 100 - point scale if necessary for purposes of comparison); otherwise, we did not attempt to assign scores to reviews that did not have them.

To identify the policy's average impact, we compared the gains in developmental - scale scores made by students who first entered 3rd grade in 2002 and scored below the FCAT benchmark with gains made by students who first entered 3rd grade in 2001 and scored below the FCAT benchmark.

When charting the average mathematics scale score and percentage of students eligible for free and reduced - price lunch in the 4th and 8th grades, we find that only nine or fewer states had a smaller percentage of students than Minnesota below «basic» proficiency.

However, the score required to pass varies considerably: on a 100 - point scale, the most demanding states tend to set a cut score 20 to 30 points above those of the least - demanding states, whose cut scores are below what is recommended by ETS.

Each school district shall develop and maintain on file a uniform process by which the district determines whether to offer AIS during the 2015 - 2016 school year to students who scored above a scale score specified in subclause (3) of this clause but below level 3 / proficient on a grade 3 - 8 English language arts or mathematics State assessment in 2014 - 2015, and shall no later than November 1, 2015 either post to its website or distribute to parents in writing a description of such process;

those students scoring below a scale score specified in subclause (3) of this clause shall receive academic intervention instructional services; and

those students scoring at or above a scale score specified in subclause (3) of this clause but below level 3 / proficient shall not be required to receive academic intervention instructional and / or student support services unless the school district, in its discretion, deems it necessary.

Jenny's MIDAS profile (see below) showed her highest scale scores as Kinaesthetic, Linguist and Interpersonal and lowest as Naturalistic.

For example, below I constructed an interactive scatterplot that compares 6th grade average scale scores on the CMT reading (2012) versus percentage of children eligible for free and reduced priced meals (FRPM) at the district level (Google sheet data here).

The tables below present the overall English language arts (ELA) / literacy and mathematics scaled scores for the 5th, 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th, 60th, 70th, 80th, 90th, and 95th percentiles for grades 3 through 8 and 11.

(More information on scale scores and performance levels is available below.)

CCSA uses a weighted average of SBAC scale scores measuring how far the average student is above / below the «Met» standard and ranked 0 - 100th percentile statewide.

Potential elementary school teachers in 21 states take the same test for licensure — the Praxis Principles of Learning & Teaching exam — with a possible score range of 100 to 200.11 Teachers in Iowa must earn a scaled score of 167 to pass, while teachers in Alabama pass with a scaled score of just 145.12 The average performance range — defined as the range of scaled scores earned by the middle 50 percent of the examinees — is 168 to 182; both Iowa's and Alabama's cut scores were well below the median score of 176.13

For reporting purposes, the achievement - level cut scores are placed on the reading scales, resulting in four ranges: below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

Yet even when the «cut scores» (the point selected on the scale above which students pass and below which they fail) on these improved state tests are set at the level of bona fide readiness for the next grade, the results of a child's test performance are apt to be reported to his parents (and himself) in misleading terms.

The grades were calculated on a 15 - point scale, so schools received As if they scored between 85 - 90 and Fs if they scored below 39.

However, two careful, large - scale studies, reviewed in detail below, suggest that despite the lack of persistence of value - added on future test scores, one year of experience with a high - value - added teacher predicts higher rates of college attendance and adult earnings, as well as other important outcomes.

Most standard tests are designed to provide accurate scores for students near proficiency; because there are not enough items measuring performance at the lower end of the scale, the tests may provide very limited information about students who score substantially below average.

They scored a 27 on a 1 - 99 scale — 23 points below the CPS average.

Also, while states are required to measure academic proficiency indicators — which are static, point - in - time indicators within their school classification systems — there may be an opportunity to measure specific aspects of proficiency data, such as growth or scale scores, which are further described below.24 That is, ESSA may provide states an opportunity to use differentiation within an indicator, as well as differentiation between schools.

There will be some pupils who will be working below the «expected standard» of the test, who will not achieve a scaled score of 100, but who should still take the tests.

The tables below show the range of scaled scores for each achievement level for mathematics and English language arts / literacy:

The first situation is customers having a poor experience (overall scores below 600 on a 1,000 - point scale), which includes an above - average incidence of problems, lack of communication and unmet promises.

In 2016, Transunion reported 43 % of borrowers ages 18 to 36 have a credit score of 600 or below on a VantageScore scale ranging from 300 to 850.

Note: Experian defines a «non-prime» car buyer as someone with a credit score below 700 on their scale.

Canada fares far less well than you might imagine and certainly worse than you'd hope, as the snapshot below of our score on the major scales shows

On the adaptive behavior scale, the mean scores for children in foster care were more than one standard deviation below the norm.

For this analysis, we excluded children with congenital diseases (eg, blindness, cleft lip and palate, spina bifida; n = 50), twins (n = 1650), or with developmental delay (Bayley Scales of Infant Development Mental [n = 450] or Motor score [n = 400] < 1.5 SDs below the sample mean), as these children might have self - regulation problems that are significantly different from the general population.

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiScales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

When alphas fell below.60, it was for subscales of measures rather than for total scores (e.g., Children's Depression Inventory, CDI; Fear Survey Schedule for Children - Revised, FSSC - R; Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, MASC; Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale, RCMAS; Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders, SCARED; State - Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, STAIC).

The scale does not have thresholds defining whether a score suggests the presence of a psychiatric disorder, so we have followed the approach taken in a previous GUS report (Marryat and Martin, 2010) and defined a relative threshold below which we classify mothers as having «poor» mental health (16 % of mothers were in this category in 2009/10), as opposed to «average or good» mental health.

Because our sample differed from those used in these previous studies (e.g., majority of children in our sample had a DBD and all were aged 7 years and over), rather than use the a priori scales, we computed parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis (described below) and scored the measure based on these results.

All participants were in a romantic relationship for at least 6 months; subjects whose scores on the anxiety component of the Chinese version of the Experience in Close Relationships scale (ECR; Tonggui and Kazuo, 2006) were one standard deviation above or below average were invited to participate in the experiment.

Toddlers from Low - Income families have below normal mental, Motor, and Behavior scores on the revised Bayley Scales

Following exactly the same procedures employed in our previous work on aggression at age 11 years in this sample, 26 high -(n = 175) and low - scoring (n = 226) aggression groups were created using a cutoff of as close as possible to 1 SD above and below the mean on the Aggression scale.