In my role as an APC assessor, I have found there are many common errors that are made when submitting a report for a submission for APC, when marked against the marking criteria.
The third common error is around relating the scores to the average. This is part of marking criterion 8 where it states:
Scores are related to the average with consistency and unexpected differences in performance are acknowledged and discussed.
- It is essential that each score has a level descriptor, as stated in the SASC guidance on page 8 and again on page 10.
Relate performance to a level descriptor and you may wish to note the standard score achieved in brackets.
- If a pattern of test scores is exceptionally low, you must use your discretion and be sensitive in your reporting of performance.
- Qualitative range descriptors can help communicate test results in context for readers of the report who are not trained assessors, such as the person tested, parents/carers, or advisors.
- Choose the range descriptors you will use and put this in Appendix 1 of your report (there are examples on the SASC paperwork, page 13) and use these descriptors throughout, rather than changing between different ones. So, for example, if you are using the descriptor ‘well above average’ in appendix 1, do not use the equivalent of ‘very high’ or interchange between the two. This way you are also considering the issue of accessibility (marking criterion 15), as also discussed in common errors 1.
In this way, you have demonstrated that your scores are all related to the average with consistency, which is part of marking criterion 8 in the APC Review Proforma that all SpLD APC awarding bodies are using when reviewing an APC (The Dyslexia Guild, BDA and PATOSS).
Part 4 of this series reports on the confidence interval for Phonological Memory, CTOPP 2.
