When wright is wrong

✍ Scribed by James Ysseldyke; Bob Algozzine; Richard Regan; Margaret Potter

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1981
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 63 KB
• Volume: 18
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0033-3085
• DOI: 10.1002/1520-6807(198110)18:4<508::aid-pits2310180425>3.0.co;2-u

✦ Synopsis

Wright (1980)

earlier raised a number of questions regarding our manuscript on the technical adequacy of devices used in a simulated psychoeducational decision-making study (Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Regan, & Potter, 1980a). We believe we effectively responded to his initial concerns (Ysseldyke, et al., 1980b). In his second response, Wright now asks a new set of questions, criticizing us for: (a) "duping" decision makers, (b) confusing group with individual decision making, (c) failing to offer "adequate support,'' and (d) conducting a study characterized by "inadequate methodology."

To respond briefly to these criticisms: (a) We do not believe our subjects were "duped." The fact that a student whom a teacher sees as having some problems in his/her class has "average" test scores is not that unusual, at least in our experience. (b) This study was not intended to represent anything other than individual decision making. We believe that understanding how the individual operates is one aspect of understanding the educational decision-making process. (c) We are confident that the methodology was adequate and appropriate for the research questions raised, and that the results are so definitive that it would not be unfair to assume that most decision makers who use technically inadequate devices in this simulation would also use them in "real life."

Naturally, not all of the issues involved in educational assessment and decision making can be addressed in one research study. We reported on the research we conducted, which may not be the research Wright would have us conduct, or thinks we conducted.