OBJECTIVES
The learning objectives of studying the Stanine Score include the following:
1. Understanding Assessment Metrics
2. Interpreting Test Results
3. Statistical Awareness
4. Educational Planning and Decision-Making
5. Setting Realistic Goals
6. Equity and Fairness in Testing
These objectives can be tailored to meet the needs of educators, students, or policymakers, depending on the context of the learning program.
Stanine Scores
Stanine scores, a contraction of "standard nine," represent a standardized method for scaling test scores. Developed during World War II by the U.S. Army Air Corps (Hench, 1951) they were initially used to assess the aptitude of pilot and navigator candidates. This system aimed to simplify the interpretation of complex test results, making it easier to understand and communicate performance across different individuals and tests. stanine" as derived from "standard" and "nine," indicating that it divides the normal distribution into nine equal parts (Best & Kahn, 2016)
How Stanines Work
Stanine scores transform raw scores into a nine-point scale. This transformation effectively divides the normal distribution of scores into nine equal segments (Kaiser, 1958). Each segment represents a range of raw scores, with a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of approximately 1.96 (Everitt & Howell, 2005). This standardized scaling allows for easy comparison of scores across different tests and individuals.
Interpretation
Stanine scores are interpreted on a nine-point scale, where 1 represents the lowest 4% of scores and 9 represents the highest 4%. A score of 5 signifies average performance, falling within the middle 20% of the distribution. Scores 1-3 generally indicate below-average performance, scores 4-6 represent the average range, and scores 7-9 suggest above-average performance. This standardized scale allows for easy comparison of scores across different tests and individuals, providing a concise and easily understood representation of performance relative to a larger group. High stanine scores were highly desirable, signifying strong aptitude for the desired position. stanine scores run from 1 to 9 along the base line of the normal curve with a unit of 50 and a median of 5 (Garrett, n.d.).
Applications
Stanines, a type of standardized score, offer a valuable tool across various domains. In the military, they play a critical role in personnel selection, placement, and evaluation processes. By providing a standardized framework for assessing individual performance and potential, stanines assist in making informed decisions regarding personnel assignments, promotions, and training programs. This ensures that individuals are placed in roles that best suit their abilities and contribute effectively to the overall mission.
Within educational settings, stanines offer several key advantages. They facilitate the effective tracking of individual student growth over time, allowing educators to monitor progress and identify areas where additional support or intervention may be necessary. Furthermore, stanines enable the formation of homogeneous groups for differentiated learning. By grouping students based on their stanine scores, educators can tailor instructional strategies to meet the specific needs and learning styles of each group, maximizing learning outcomes for all students. Finally, (Rudner et al., 1989). Stanines provide a concise and easily understandable way to report test results to parents, educators, and students. This fosters clear communication and facilitates informed decision-making regarding student progress and future academic planning.
Advantages
Stanine scores offer a valuable tool for simplifying and interpreting test results. By converting complex raw scores into a single-digit score ranging from 1 to 9, stanines make results more easily understood and communicated. This single-digit representation provides a quick and intuitive way to determine whether a particular score falls below or above the mean (Ramos, 2023). Moreover, stanines reduce the emphasis on minor score differences by grouping scores into broader categories (Cermak, 1989). This approach minimizes the impact of small variations in raw scores, discouraging an overemphasis on insignificant fluctuations and promoting a more holistic view of overall performance. .In contemporary research, the stanine process remains a valuable tool for analysing data, particularly when dealing with Likert scale responses (Vishwakarma & Kachroo, 2022).
Furthermore, stanines facilitate meaningful comparisons across different tests and individuals. By providing a standardized framework for evaluating performance, stanines allow for more confident interpretation of score differences. The statistical characteristics of stanine scores enable researchers to confidently interpret a difference of two stanine units between scores on two tests as representing true differences in performance (Joyslen, 1975). This facilitates more accurate assessments of individual strengths and weaknesses, guiding subsequent decisions regarding instruction, interventions, and placement.
Limitations
One limitation of stanine scores is the loss of precision inherent in grouping scores into nine categories. This can lead to a loss of fine-grained information compared to raw scores, which may be crucial in certain contexts. For instance, when precise distinctions between scores are critical for decision-making, the coarser nine-point stanine scale might not provide sufficient granularity. It's important to note that while stanines simplify interpretation, they do not inherently increase or decrease the validity of the underlying test (Bendig, 1957). The predictive accuracy of the test itself remains unaffected by the use of stanines.
Another limitation of stanines lies in their limited range. The nine-point scale may not be sufficient to accurately represent the full range of performance in some cases, particularly in situations where a wider range of scores is needed for accurate differentiation. This can be a concern when dealing with highly diverse populations or when fine-grained distinctions are essential for making critical decisions. While stanines offer a simplified framework for interpreting test results, there is always the potential for misinterpretation if the scale is not understood correctly or if comparisons are made inappropriately. Both percentile ranks and stanine scores may be recorded as was done in this study. An 11-point scale that separates stanines 1 and 9 into two equal parts of 1 percent and 3 percent, respectively, may be used. Where accuracy of measurement justifies greater refinement of units for a specific purpose, each y unit may be divided into three equal parts (Fee, n.d.).
Conclusion
Stanine scores offer a valuable tool for simplifying the interpretation and comparison of test results. They provide a concise and easily understandable representation of performance, making them useful in various settings, particularly in education and military recruitment. However, it's crucial to understand their limitations and use them appropriately in conjunction with other assessment methods.
Table 1
Percentage of the distribution of each stanine score
Satine score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Percentage 4 7 12 17 20 17 12 7 4
Figure 1
Normal distribution of stanine
Reference
Bendig, A. W. (1957). The Comparative Validity of Raw Scores vs. Stanine Scores. The
Journal of General Psychology, 56(2), 291-292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1957.9920340
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2016). Research in Education. Pearson India.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=AREwDwAAQBAJ
Cermak, S. (1989). Norms and Scores (pp. 91-123). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315859811-
5
Everitt, B., & Howell, D. C. (Eds.). (2005). Encyclopaedia of statistics in behavioural science.
John Wiley & Sons.
Fee, K. E. (n.d.). A STUDY OF STANINES AS A METHODOLOGY IN THE
IDENTIFICATION OF THE POTENTIALLY SUPERIOR HIGH-SCHOOL
STUDENT.
Garrett, H. E. (n.d.). Statistics in Psychology and Education.
Hench, A. L. (1951). The Coining of "Stanine." American Speech, 26(1), 72-74. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/453323
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). A Modified Stanine Scale. The Journal of Experimental Education,
26(3), 261-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1958.11010603
Maria Cristina M. Ramos. (2023). A Correlation of Entrance Exam Scores (Stanine) and
Programming Ability of Computer Science Students. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management and Sustainable Development, 11(2), 69-74.
Rudner, L. M., Conoley, J. C., Plake, B. S., ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and
Evaluation, & Buros Institute of Mental Measurements (Eds.). (1989). Understanding
achievement tests: A guide for school administrators. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests,
Measurement, and Evaluation, American Institutes for Research.
Vishwakarma, A., & Kachroo, A. (2022). Construction and Standardization of Parental
Involvement Scale. 74.
FLIP BOOK
CONCEPT MAP
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
