{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030882352941176472, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011029411764705883, 'mean_word_length': 5.639024390243902, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Actuarial Classification of Children

Two studies were conducted to evaluate the dependability of actuarial methods in the educational classification of children. The first study examined the extent to which the determination of a severe discrepancy between aptitude and achievement, used in the identification of children with learning disabilities, was consistent across (a) two different methods of calculating discrepancy scores and (b) three different measures of academic achievement. A sample of 373 students was administered the WISC-R and one or more achievement measures (i.e., WJPB, WRAT-R, and WRMT). The standard-score comparison and regression-prediction methods identified an equivalent proportion of severe underachievers for five of seven achievement scales, with kappa coefficients ranging from .57 to .86. Of far greater practical significance, the use of alternative achievement measures resulted in relatively little agreement on appropriate classification, with kappa coefficients for same-domain achievement measures ranging from .19 to .47 (for standard-score discrepancies) and from .23 to .47 (for regression-prediction discrepancies). In the second study, computer-simulated data were presented to illustrate underlying measurement principles. Potential implications for public policy and professional practice were discussed.