SPM-2 items: validating vulnerability categories
John Williams
Hi all,
It’s time to finish validating the vulnerability categories (over, under, seek, etc.)for each item. We have begun writing SPSS syntax so now would be a good time to complete our validation so that we can write the code to analyze those vulnerability dimensions as soon as we have enough data.
The task is simple, just provide a vulnerability category for any item that was left blank or was assigned to more than one category (labeled “MULT”). Both blanks and MULTs are highlighted pink in the DIM column. Please provide exactly one category for every pink cell. For your reference, here is a list of the total number of missing/MULT items:
Adult Self: 5
Adult Other: 0
Teen Self: 0
Teen Parent: 1
Teen Teacher: 0
Teen Driving: ALL (18 self 18 other)
Child School: 12
Child Home: 26
Child School Environments: 0
Preschool Home: 14
Preschool School: 14
I/T Infant: 23
I/T Toddler: 32
I/T Caregiver: 26
Please use the attached documents for this task, as I have specially prepared them to receive your input.
If you can get these back to me in the next couple of weeks, that would be great.
Let me know if that’s possible.
J
John
From: 'ateachabout' via SPM-2 Project Workspace [mailto:spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:52 AM
To: spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Kailey Bax <kb...@wpspublish.com>
Subject: Re: meeting follow-up
Hi John,
Thank you for the detailed follow up and for the Adult form.
Re the vulnerabilities:
As I mentioned on yesterday's call Rick and I have reviewed all the new items and vulnerabilities for each of the forms to organize in preparation for the Quick Tips.
I will share them with our SPM author team so we are all in agreement before sending them to you.
By when will you need them?
Thanks,
Diana
Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® 6.
-------- Original message --------
From: John Williams <jwil...@wpspublish.com>
Date: 6/12/17 1:03 PM (GMT-07:00)
Cc: Kailey Bax <kb...@wpspublish.com>
Subject: meeting follow-up
Hi all,
Nice to talk to you all this morning. Here are the final Adult items for your records.
Here also is a brief list of follow-ups based on the agenda items we covered while I was on the call:
1. T-score range categories: we discussed changing the labels for the t-score ranges from what we used in prior versions (Typical, Some Problems, Definite Dysfunction) to something else (such as Typical, Atypical, Very Atypical). We left it that I would do some research to find out what are the most common ways of defining those categories across the industry. Our new Product Support Specialist, Kailey Bax, is going to help out with this, so I’ve copied her here.
2. Adult form names: We discussed a few options for the non-self-report adult form (informant report; family and friends report ; additional reporter) and landed for the time being on “Other Report,” which is general enough to take in the various settings and raters that users may encounter, while also having good parallel wording with Self-Report. Kailey can also give us a heads-up an any other options that we may have overlooked.
3. DIF scores: As I look more closely at the forms, we could modify them so that the user can generate DIF scores for each sensory category.
4. Vulnerability scores: we’ll look for a way to make use of the vulnerability data. Not sure what that might look like until we see the data.
Nest steps:
1. While you all continue to work on the case studies, I will continue pre-writing the manual chapters. When I get through Chapter 3 (Interpretation), I will send that to you as your next major task, as that chapter will probably be your most extensive content contribution to the manual.
2. Related to number 4 above, I’m thinking now that it may be a good idea for you all to review and approve the vulnerability categories sooner rather than later. Originally I had thought we should do it after the final items had been selected to save you from having to validate all of the extra items that will not make it into the final scales. But given that you identified some errors in the labels, I think we should do it before we select the final items, for two reasons: one, in case we want to make any item selection decisions based on the representations of vulnerabilities; and two, so that we don’t have to wait for the vulnerability labels to get started on those analyses.
Let me know if I missed anything, and if you agree with #2 in the next steps.
Talk to you soon…
John
John C. Williams, PhD
Senior Project Director
Licensed Clinical Psychologist
t 800.648.8857 or 424.201.8800
625 Alaska Avenue, Torrance, CA 90503
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPM-2 Project Workspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
spm-2-project-wor...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/spm-2-project-workspace.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Heather Kuhaneck
Sent from my iPhone
<SPM-2_Adult_standardization_forms_vulnerability_review.xlsx>
<SPM-2_Child_School_Environments_standardization_forms_vulnerability_review.xlsx>
<SPM-2_Child_standardization_forms_vulnerability_review.xlsx>
<SPM-2_Infant-Toddler_standardization_forms_vulnerability_review.xlsx>
<SPM-2_Preschool_standardization_forms_vulnerability_review.xlsx>
<SPM-2_Teen_Environments_standardization_forms_vulnerability_review.xlsx>
<SPM-2-Teen_standardization_forms_vulnerability_review.xlsx>
John Williams
John C. Williams, PhD
Diane Parham
John, we already started the process of checking the categories for "bogeys." Sounds like we are thinking the same thing . . . which is good! I am optimistic we can finish in September.
Diane
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 11:12 AM
To: spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: SPM-2 items: validating vulnerability categories
ateachabout
John Williams
John C. Williams, PhD