Explore the vast range of titles available.

The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) has published terminology and classification manuals since 1921. Their goals over the last 100 years have been consistent: To fulfill the Association's continued responsibility to be the primary repository of intellectual disability-related research and best practices; to publish a scientific definition of intellectual disability (ID) and its assumptions based on research and one that provides a long, stable definitional history; to provide a singular focus on ID and the lives of people with ID and their families; and to communicate professional standards, ethics, and best practices regarding diagnosis, classification, and planning supports. Consistent with these historical goals, the goals of the 12th edition of the AAIDD manual (Schalock et al. 2021) are to: (a) integrate material published in the 11th edition (Schalock et al., 2010) of the AAIDD manual with post-2010 developments and historical markers; (b) develop a user-friendly manual that combines the theoretical and conceptual thoroughness of a manual with the practical aspects of a user's guide; (c) describe a systematic approach to the diagnosis, optional subgroup classification, and planning of supports for people with intellectual disability based on conceptual models, a clear rationale and purpose, and evidence-based practices; (d) combine current empirical knowledge and best practices into an integrative approach to intellectual disability; and (e) provide practice guidelines that frame best practices, increase understanding, and facilitate precise, valid, and effective decisions, recommendations, and actions. The content of the 12th edition reflects the transformation that is occurring in the field of ID. This transformation, which is occurring to various degrees internationally, is characterized by using precise terminology, incorporating a functional and holistic approach to ID, embracing the supports model and evidence-based practices, implementing outcome evaluation, empowering individuals and families, understanding better the multidimensional properties of context, and incorporating an explicit notion of professional responsibility (Schalock et al., in press). As a result of this transformation, the manual contains both modifications of previous concepts and terminology, and the addition of new terms and concepts. These modifications and additions are reflected in the definition of intellectual disability, the evidence-based approach to diagnosis and optional postdiagnosis subgroup classification, the operationalization of systems of supports, and the incorporation of an integrative approach to ID. Throughout the manual, human functioning is viewed from a systems perspective towards understanding human functioning, which includes human functioning dimensions, interactive systems of supports, and human functioning outcomes.

The author presented descriptive statistics for 937 reliability coefficients for various reliability methods (e.g., alpha) and test types (e.g., intelligence). He compared the average reliability coefficients with the reliability standards that are suggested by experts and found that most average reliabilities were less than ideal. Correlations showed that over the past several decades there has been neither a rise nor a decline in the value of internal consistency, retest, or interjudge reliability coefficients. Of the internal consistency approaches, there has been an increase in the use of coefficient alpha, whereas use of the split-half method has decreased over time. Decision analysis and true-score confidence intervals showed how low reliability can result in clinical decision errors.

Physician–patient communication is a clinical skill that can be learned and has a positive impact on patient satisfaction and health outcomes. A concerted effort at all medical schools is now directed at teaching and evaluating this core skill. Student communication skills are often assessed by an Objective Structure Clinical Examination (OSCE). However, it is unknown what sources of error variance are introduced into examinee communication scores by various OSCE components. This study primarily examined the effect different examiners had on the evaluation of students’ communication skills assessed at the end of a family medicine clerkship rotation. The communication performance of clinical clerks from Classes 2005 and 2006 were assessed using six OSCE stations. Performance was rated at each station using the 28-item Calgary-Cambridge guide. Item Response Theory analysis using a Multifaceted Rasch model was used to partition the various sources of error variance and generate a “true” communication score where the effects of examiner, case, and items are removed. Variance and reliability of scores were as follows: communication scores (.20 and .87), examiner stringency/leniency (.86 and .91), case (.03 and .96), and item (.86 and .99), respectively. All facet scores were reliable (.87–.99). Examiner variance (.86) was more than four times the examinee variance (.20). About 11% of the clerks’ outcome status shifted using “true” rather than observed/raw scores. There was large variability in examinee scores due to variation in examiner stringency/leniency behaviors that may impact pass–fail decisions. Exploring the benefits of examiner training and employing “true” scores generated using Item Response Theory analyses prior to making pass/fail decisions are recommended.

In best linear prediction (BLP), a true test score is predicted by observed item scores and by ancillary test data. If the use of BLP rather than a more direct estimate of a true score has disparate impact for different demographic groups, then a fairness issue arises. To improve population invariance but to preserve much of the efficiency of BLP, a modified approach, penalized best linear prediction, is proposed that weights both mean square error of prediction and a quadratic measure of subgroup biases. The proposed methodology is applied to three high-stakes writing assessments.

This study scrutinized the interaction between linguistic and strategic variables in reading comprehension test performance of Iranian EFL learners. To this end, the interaction among the participants’ reading comprehension test performance, use of test-taking strategies, and level of language proficiency was analyzed. The participants comprised 286 students who answered a reading comprehension test and a test-taking strategy questionnaire. In addition, 25 students participated in a retrospective interview at the end of the study and described their strategic processes of test taking. The findings manifested a significant interaction among the use of test-taking strategies, level of reading proficiency, and test performance of the examinees. The more proficient test takers used the strategies more frequently than did the less proficient test takers. The qualitative findings also confirmed the quantitative findings and revealed the underlying nonlinguistic reasons for the differences in the frequency and type of the strategies used by the test takers. The findings reflected that the observed scores did not manifest true ability of language learners, and true score should be calculated with regard to nonlinguistic variables, particularlytest-taking strategies. The findings provide empirical support for Bachman’s classical true score measurement theory and Bachman’s framework for the factors affecting test performance.

Life satisfaction is often assessed using single-item measures. However, estimating the reliability of these measures can be difficult because internal consistency coefficients cannot be calculated. Existing approaches use longitudinal data to isolate occasion-specific variance from variance that is either completely stable or variance that changes systematically over time. In these approaches, reliable occasion-specific variance is typically treated as measurement error, which would negatively bias reliability estimates. In the current studies, panel data and multivariate latent state-trait models are used to isolate reliable occasion-specific variance from random error and to estimate reliability for scores from single-item life satisfaction measures. Across four nationally representative panel studies with a combined sample size of over 68,000, reliability estimates increased by an average of 16% when the multivariate model was used instead of the more standard univaríate longitudinal model.

Classical psychometrics held that scores on a personality measure were determined by the trait assessed and random measurement error. A new view proposes a much richer and more complex model that includes trait variance at multiple levels of a hierarchy of traits and systematic biases shaped by the implicit personality theory of the respondent. The model has implications for the optimal length and content of scales and for the use of scales intended to correct for evaluative bias; further, it suggests that personality assessments should supplement self-reports with informant ratings. The model also has implications for the very nature of personality traits.

Objective. To review issues surrounding the use of grades in the educational process and provide evidence-based recommendations for how to redesign grading practices for optimal value. Findings. Traditional tiered grading systems (ie, A, B, C, etc) have historically been a major component of the formal educational process. The way grades are used and interpreted are typically based on some commonly held assumptions, including that they are accurate measures of learning, that they motivate students to learn, and that they provide feedback to learners. However, much of the research regarding grades indicates that flaws exist in these assumptions. Grades may not always accurately measure learning, they can have adverse effects on student motivation, and they are not a good form of feedback. Summary. The Academy should consider the evidence regarding the purpose, effects, and interpretation of grades in the educational process. Despite barriers and potential pushback, pharmacy educators should revise grading practices to be more accurate, interpretable, and beneficial to learner development.

There are three fundamental problems in Sijtsma (Psychometrika, 2008 ): (1) contrary to the name, the glb is not the greatest lower bound of reliability but rather is systematically less than ω t (McDonald, Test theory: A unified treatment, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1999 ), (2) we agree with Sijtsma that when considering how well a test measures one concept, α is not appropriate, but recommend ω t rather than the glb, and (3) the end user needs procedures that are readily available in open source software.

Sijtsma and Pfadt ( 2021 ) published a thought-provoking article on coefficient alpha. I make the following arguments against their work. 1) Kuder and Richardson (1937) deserve more credit for coefficient alpha than Cronbach ( 1951 ). 2) We should distinguish between the definition of reliability and its meaning. 3) We should be wary of overfitting in the use of FA reliability. 4) Our primary concern is to obtain accurate reliability estimates rather than conservative estimates. 5) Several reliability estimators, such as λ 2 , μ 2 , congeneric reliability and the Gilmer-Feldt coefficient are more accurate than coefficient alpha. 6) The name omega should not be used to refer to a specific reliability estimator.