Reconsideration of measurement of error in human motor learning

Human motor learning is often measured by error scores. The convention of using mean absolute error, mean constant error, and variable error shows lack of desirable parsimony and interpretability. This paper provides the background of error measurement and states criticisms of conventional methodology. A parsimonious model of error analysis is provided, along with operationalized interpretations and implications for motor learning. Teaching, interpreting, and using error scores in research may be simplified and facilitated with the model.     

SETTING CUTOFF SCORES: LEGAL, PSYCHOMETRIC, AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES AND GUIDELINES

Cutoff scores are used in a variety of settings to help managers make personnel decisions. Although cutoff scores are used widely, information about their derivation and appropriate use is scattered in the legal, psychometric, and professional literatures. The purpose of this paper is to analyze critically and to integrate these diverse literatures, to summarize what is known and what is unknown about the use and misuse of cutoff scores. Alternative methods are examined in relation to legal precedents set by the courts, to psychometric principles, and to the various sets of professional guidelines. Directions for future research are suggested, and we conclude with a set of recommendations regarding acceptable professional practice in this area.     

Relation between musical aptitude and intelligence among mentally retarded, advantaged, and disadvantaged subjects

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in scores of 59 mentally retarded adults (mild, moderate, severe, or profound), 133 advantaged, and 130 disadvantaged (low income) children in Grades 1, 2, 3 on the Primary Measures of Music Audiation. Test-retest reliabilities for the Tonal and Rhythm subtests were .81 and .86, respectively, for the retarded group. Analysis of variance indicated that the mildly retarded children performed significantly better than other groups of retarded children on these two tests. 2 x 3 analyses of variance indicated that third graders from both advantaged and disadvantaged groups performed significantly better than the first or second graders on both subtests and that advantaged children performed significantly better than the disadvantaged. However, disadvantaged children made greater gains, especially for third graders, than the advantaged.