Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

For the evaluation of tht Fire Control Instrument Kepairaan and the
Apprtnt ice Hachinlst a separate performance evaluation Instrument was
designed to cover each of the performance tests. Copies of there instruments
art attathtd as Appendix C and D.
Testing Procedure
Several classes were used to validate. all self-evaluation instrumtnt
5. After the instruments wcrt validated, students who did not make
self-evaluations were dtsignattd as the control group and students making
self-evaluations were considered to be the experimental group.
The SET test project dirtctcr matched each student in the control
group vith a comparable student in the txptrimtntal group using the GM
or .% scores as a basis for equating these matched pairs. In some
instances it was impossible to make comparable matches for each of the
matched pairs vher. matching the students by classes. The overall results
on the total of matches for each course showed a very close mean for the
matched pairs.
The experimental groups made a self-evaluation for each of Cht ptrformanct
tests they performed. k technical ly qua1 if fed grader evaluated
each performance test performed by both the experimental md control
groups. ‘rhtst evaluations wert forvardtd to tht SET study project director
who scored the self-evaluator’s score sheets. the grader’s evaluation of
the self-evaluators’ score sheets and the pradtrs’ evaluations of the
non-self-evaluatiqns. The student’s self-evaluation and the grader’s
evaluation sheets were a’ttachcd toEtther and returned to the students
4th tither critical or complimentary remarks which were influenced by
the scores they made on that performance test. X:0 score was rtcotded
on the returned student or prac’er’s evaluation sheets acd the comments
reflzc:cd only his weak or strcnp tasks on rht Ftrfornance test. The
Fral’ers’ scores for the non-self-evaiuators wtrt recorded by the project
2irectar opposite his match from the self-evaluators.
The performance test scores for each of the matched pairs were used
to test for a sign! ficant difference between the means of the control
and experimental groups.
For the purpose of evaluation the SET studies were designed to test
for significant tiifierenct bervetn tSe grac’crs’ scores for students uho
made se1 f-rvaluat ions and the praders’ scores for students who did not
make se1 f-evaluat ions.
258
.