Calculus and Above
Calculus Questions? Ask a Mathematician for Answers ASAP
Thank you for using the site. How can I help you?
Please post the question and the data that goes with it. I'll be happy to take a look at it.
So, if I understand this correctly, each student surveyed is given a composite score from 0 to 320, and you want to subdivide that range into four different classes.
Is that correct?
This sounds like something that would be a judgement call on your part, as the researcher conducting the survey.
Depending on what was measured, and the various subscores, this may be more complicated than just dividing the total score range into equal-width subranges.
I would suspect that a reasonable approach would be to find out how other similar studies may have been done, so that your approach is consistent with comparable studies.
With no other research to use as a guide, you're really kind of on your own as far as designing your experiment. Whichever way you decide to go, though, you want to be very clear about how you are classifying various scores, and why you have chosen that particular breakdown.
As for the subscores, you can use a weighted mean to calculate the composite score for each survey participant. However, you will have to determine what weighting factors to use for each of the eight subscores, based on the data that is used to make up each subscore, and how that relates to the partipant's "adjustment".
Yes, you could do that.
You could go a step farther and calculate the standard deviation of the scores.
You could then establish a scale along the following lines:
More than 2 standard deviations above the mean -> very high adjusted studentsBetween the mean and 2 standard deviations above the mean -> High adjustedBetween the mean and 2 standard deviations below the mean -> moderated adjustedMore than 2 standard deviations below the mean -> low adjusted
However, this is somewhat arbitrary, and a peer reviewer might have criticisms about your methodology.
I'm not sure where that comes from.
Yes, I would agree with that last part.
I'm just not sure about the justification for the calculation of the 84% value.
"!- the interval = 5-1=44/5=.85-.8=4.24.2/5 *100= 84%this this the highest and so on .... "
What I am saying is that I don't know where the various numbers in the above calculation come from.
It seems that the 5 - 1 = 4 calculation is to determine the range of response values.
The next line divides this value of 4 by 5, and I'm not clear on what that result is supposed to represent.
I understand the math calculations that are being shown. It's the reasoning behind them that I am not clear on.
If you continue with this pattern, then you will divide up the 320 score as follows:
>84% (Score > 268.8) = very high adjusted students68% - 84% (217.6 < Score < 268.8) = High adjusted52% - 68% (166.4 < Score < 217.6) = moderated adjusted< 52% (Score < 166.4) = low adjusted
I'm not suggesting that you cannot, or should not, divide up the scale in this manner. But what makes
this scale better or more appropriate than dividing the range up into equal segments of 25% each?
Yes. Why can't you divide the composite score up as follows:
>75% (Score > 240) = very high adjusted students50% - 75% (160 < Score < 240) = High adjusted25% - 50% (80 < Score < 160) = moderated adjusted< 25% (Score < 80) = low adjusted
This would be a very different distribution, but I don't see where there is justification for saying that one way is better than the other.
I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for that.
Yes, unless you need clarification of anything that we discussed.
You're welcome. :)