This study examined the effectiveness of a summarization strategy for increasing comprehension of expository prose in students with learning disabilities. Thirty students with learning disabilities from Grades 6 through 9 were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In addition, 15 students without disabilities served as a normal comparison group for comprehension. Students in the experimental condition were trained to criterion on five rules of summarization. Direct instruction in the summarization strategy significantly increased reading comprehension of the students in the experimental group. Strategy usage was maintained over time, and students were reported to generalize its use.

We appreciate the journal's invitation to respond to the paper by Sabers, Feldt, and Reschly and its willingness to promote a dialogue about estimated true scores (ETS). First, we agree with the uses for estimated true scores recommended by Sabers et al.; they are essentially the same as those recommended by Nunnally (1978). Likewise, we agree that situations exist in which ETSs are not helpful since ETSs are usually just linear transformations 1 of obtained scores (i.e., the scores that individuals actually earn on tests). 2 For example, when a test has perfect reliability, there is no need to estimate true scores since obtained scores and true scores are the same.Sabers et al. are particularly concerned with the interpretation of an individual's standardized test scores. They state that estimated true scores "do not improve or clarify interpretation of typical standardized test scores. The use of estimated true scores can actually harm, not improve, many decisions based on test score interpretation." Later they elaborate:Formal test scores are more often used in the context of standardized testing where score meaning is usually created through comparison of the individual's performance to the scores of some reference group. . . . The relevant issue concerns which score, the obtained or estimated true score, should be used in these crucial normative comparisons.'An estimated true score equals rn (Obtained Score -Mean) + Mean, where r u is a test's esdmated reliability. 2 When the same estimate of reliability and group mean are used for all test takers, ETSs represent a simple linear transformation of obtained scores. If different estimates of reliability and group mean are used for different subsets of the population, this can substantially alter estimates of mastery and relative standing.

No abstract

No abstract

The relationship between physical attractiveness and personal-social development was examined. The entire third, fourth, and fifth grade school population (N=440) was administered a self-concept and peer acceptance measure. School pictures of these children were then rated into attractive and unattractive groups (N = 84). Three separate three-factor (sex X attractiveness X grade) analyses of variance indicated attractive children were more socially accepted than their unattractive peers and had higher self-concepts.