Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The benchmark scores vary each year to result in about 2,000 students in the pool. When the NNAT2 (vs. the NNAT) was first given, the number of kids in the pool dropped when they kept the benchmark at 132 so they lowered it to 130. With the Cogat Form 7 this year, if they had left the benchmark at 130, they would have over 5,000 kids in the pool. (That's 5,000 screening files to prepare and review.) So they adjusted the benchmark score to 132 to include a 132 on any CogAT subtest. They were still over 3,000 kids in the pool. So they contacted the author of the test, who suggested they use the CogAT composite of 132. That results in a little over 2,500 students in the pool.
source?
Anonymous wrote:The benchmark scores vary each year to result in about 2,000 students in the pool. When the NNAT2 (vs. the NNAT) was first given, the number of kids in the pool dropped when they kept the benchmark at 132 so they lowered it to 130. With the Cogat Form 7 this year, if they had left the benchmark at 130, they would have over 5,000 kids in the pool. (That's 5,000 screening files to prepare and review.) So they adjusted the benchmark score to 132 to include a 132 on any CogAT subtest. They were still over 3,000 kids in the pool. So they contacted the author of the test, who suggested they use the CogAT composite of 132. That results in a little over 2,500 students in the pool.
Anonymous wrote:Didn't the raising of the benchmark to 132 this year help keep the pool around the same size as in prior years?
Anonymous wrote:But where is the evidence that scores are indeed on average higher this year?