The test floor effects seen in standardised tests lead to a standardised score of 1 or less with a flat profile that hides a child’s individual strengths and needs. The Griffiths III community of practitioners reques...The test floor effects seen in standardised tests lead to a standardised score of 1 or less with a flat profile that hides a child’s individual strengths and needs. The Griffiths III community of practitioners requested advice on the reporting of children’s development below the floor of the test, so that individual strengths and needs can be described. This paper reports the third phase of research following an earlier Scoping Review and a wider literature review. To confirm quality control, Phase 3 was conducted in a retrospective manner using the same methodology as the earlier phases but in a reverse direction. Peer reviewer comments and key elements from the Scoping Review and keywords from the publications were tabulated. Data analysis included a change of perspective to that of the child and their individual rights with respect to the literature themes already described in Phase 2. These confirmed that there is little specific guidance in the literature, but that computational advances for homogeneous populations and especially disaggregated data offer some solutions. A greater balance between broad biopsychosocial models and standardised models of assessment should be sought by practitioners together with the use of disaggregated data to highlight issues that pertain to individual subsets of results. This will ensure that the child’s right for their individual strengths and needs to be described together with a plan for management, may be met.展开更多
文摘The test floor effects seen in standardised tests lead to a standardised score of 1 or less with a flat profile that hides a child’s individual strengths and needs. The Griffiths III community of practitioners requested advice on the reporting of children’s development below the floor of the test, so that individual strengths and needs can be described. This paper reports the third phase of research following an earlier Scoping Review and a wider literature review. To confirm quality control, Phase 3 was conducted in a retrospective manner using the same methodology as the earlier phases but in a reverse direction. Peer reviewer comments and key elements from the Scoping Review and keywords from the publications were tabulated. Data analysis included a change of perspective to that of the child and their individual rights with respect to the literature themes already described in Phase 2. These confirmed that there is little specific guidance in the literature, but that computational advances for homogeneous populations and especially disaggregated data offer some solutions. A greater balance between broad biopsychosocial models and standardised models of assessment should be sought by practitioners together with the use of disaggregated data to highlight issues that pertain to individual subsets of results. This will ensure that the child’s right for their individual strengths and needs to be described together with a plan for management, may be met.
