Subject Index

Subject Index (4 pages) A-Z A AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale School Edition, 25 Acceptability of microcomputers, 145- 147 Access limitations, test security, 182- 183 Access to directions, 184-185 Adaptive Behavior Inventory for Children, 25 Adaptive testing, 6-7,15-16, 245-247 Adjective check list, 249 American Educational Research Association.Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 147,228-229, 240 American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists, 147,230,257-259, 263-265 American Psychological Association General Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services, 229, 257- 258, 263-265 American Psychological Association, Guidelines for Computer-based Tests and Interpretations, 14,43,147-148, 245-273 American Psychological Association Specialty Guidelines for the Delivery of Services, 229 American Psychological Association Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 147, 228-229, 240, 255-256, 259-260, 262-263, 266-269American Psychological Association Standards for Providers of Psychological Services, 147,229 Analogue assessment, 131-133 Answer registration, 190 Anned Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, 229,245, 248-249 Artificial intelligence (AI), 16, 158, 180,217-221 Assessment-classification model, 161 - 164 Association for Addvancement of Behavior Therapy, 147 ... V/W Valid computer-assisted test interpretations, preconditions, 1-6 Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 25 Vineland Social Maturity ScaleRevised, 25 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, II, 25 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, 16-18,24-25 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 25 Wide-Range Achievement Test Revised,25 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, 25, 33 Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, 25 World Health Organization\u27s International Classification of Diseases, 20, 2

MULTIMEDIA FOR LEARNING: METHODS AND DEVELOPMENT (3TH EDITION) - BOOK REVIEW

Stephen M. Alessi is an Associate Professor at the University of Iowa, on Psychological and Quantitative Foundations Department. He received his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology form University of Illinois in 1979. His principal research interests are Educational Technology, Multimedia Design, Web-Based Learning and Instructional Simulation. Stephen M. Alessi is an active member of American Educational Research Association, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction and System Dynamics Society. Stanley R. Trollip is an Associate Professor at Capella University, Minneapolis. His main interests are Higher Education, Educational Assessment and Educational Technology. He has published more than 50 publications on topics like Computer based technology, Education methods and development, Classroom management, Educational Software. Stanley R. Trollip is an active member of American Educational Research Association, Association for Educational Communications and Technology  Article visualizations

An Interview with Anita Woolfolk Hoy and Wayne K. Hoy: About Instructional Leadership

Anita Woolfolk Hoy received her BA in Psychology in 1969 and her PhD in Educational Psychology both from the University of Texas at Austin. She worked briefly as a school psychologist in Texas, and then joined the faculty in Department of Educational Psychology of the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University in 1979. She remained there until 1993 and served as Chair of the department from 1990 to 1993. Presently she is a Professor in the College of Education at The Ohio State University. Her professional offices include Vice-President for Division K (Teaching and Teacher Education) of the American Educational Research Association and President of Division 15 (Educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Association

The Future of Testing: Subject Index

The Future of Testing: Subject Index (6 pages) A Abilities assessment of, 158- 167 Academic skills, 101 , 102 Achievement testing, 3, 73- 89 Actuarial assessment , 194- 195 Adaptive testing, 37- 39, 83 , 84 and criterion referenced tests , 38 Albermarle Paper Company v. Moody, 132 American College Test (ACT), 76, 86 American Educational Research Association (AERA) , 100 American Psychological Association (APA), 100 Anderson v. Banks, 11 7, 128 Aptitude testing, 3, 73- 89 Aptitude-treatment interaction , 14 Armstead et 01. v. Stark ville Mississippi municipal separate school district, 118 ... W Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, 132 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale , 210, 228 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 211 , 225 Wide Range Achievement Test, 2 1

Measuring pregnancy planning: An assessment of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among urban, south Indian women

Copyright © 2010 Corinne H. Rocca et al. This open-access work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 2.0 Germany, which permits use, reproduction & distribution in any medium for non-commercial purposes, provided the original author(s) and source are given credit. See http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/de/.We evaluated the psychometric properties of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among Indian women using classical methods and Item Response Modeling. The scale exhibited good internal consistency and internal structure, with overall scores correlating well with each item’s response categories. Items performed similarly for pregnant and non-pregnant women, and scores decreased with increasing parity, providing evidence for validity. Analyses detected small disadvantages, including low endorsement of middle response categories and some evidence of differential item functioning by parity. We conclude that the LMUP is suitable for use in India and recommend steps for improving scale performance for this cultural context.National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Levis Strauss Foundation

A tribute to Dr. Willy Lens

Dr. Willy Lens, born on December 10th, 1943, passed away on August 29th, 2014. With his passing, the motivation community has lost a seminal member, a mentor, and a friend. Dr. Lens – a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and Founding Fellow of the American Educational Research Association – made fundamental contributions to the study of motivation both through his own work and through his caring and thoughtful mentorship of a large community of scholars. With this tribute, we want to honor Dr. Willy Lens’ significance to psychology and education as well as his positive influence, both personally and professionally, on the lives of dozens of scholars. With his contagious enthusiasm and caring mentorship, Willy was an example for our academic community and with this tribute we express our gratitude for the privilege to have collaborated with him

The Role of Consequences in validity Theory

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72502/1/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00826.x.pd

Practitioners' views and barriers to implementation of the Keeping Birth Normal tool: A pilot study

Background: Poor implementation of evidence in practice has been reported as a reason behind the continued rise in unnecessary interventions in labour and birth. A validated tool can enable the systematic measurement of care to target interventions to support implementation of evidence. The Keeping Birth Normal tool has been developed to measure and support implementation of evidence to reduce unnecessary interventions in labour and birth. Aims: This pilot sought the views of midwives about the usefulness and relevance of the Keeping Birth Normal tool in measuring and supporting practice; it also identified barriers to implementation. Methods: Five midwives supported by five preceptors tested the tool on a delivery suite and birth centre in a local NHS Trust. Mixed methods were employed. Participants completed a questionnaire about the relevance and usefulness of the tool. Semi-structured interviews explored participants' experience of using the tool in practice. Findings: The domains and items in the tool were viewed as highly relevant to reducing unnecessary interventions. Not all midwives were open to their practice being observed, but those who were reported benefits from critical reflection and role-modelling to support implementation. An important barrier is a lack of expertise among preceptors to support the implementation of skills to reduce unnecessary interventions. This includes skills in the use of rating scales and critical reflection. Where expertise is available, there is a lack of protected time for such structured supportive activity. Norms in birth environments that do not promote normal birth are another important barrier. Conclusions: Midwives found the items in the tool relevant to evidence-informed skills to reduce unnecessary interventions and useful for measuring and supporting implementation. To validate and generalise these findings, further evidence about the quality of items needs to be gathered. Successful implementation of the tool requires preceptors skilled in care that reduces unnecessary interventions, using rating scales, role-modelling and critical reflection. Such structured preceptorship requires protected time and can only thrive in a culture that promotes normal birth