{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03300124533001245, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012453300124533, 'mean_word_length': 5.668049792531121, '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}}
Improving Validity By Testing for Competence: Refinement of a Paradigm and Its Application to the Hearing-Impaired

The Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices and a Piagetian battery were administered to 120 hearing-impaired children, ages 6-11 years, under one of two nonelaborative conditions—(1) standard, or (2) simple feedback—or under one of four elaborative conditions—(3) child's "verbalization" after problem solution, (4) verbalization during and after solution, (5) differential feedback, and (6) verbalization during and after solution coupled with differential feedback. The study was designed to (a) establish the differential effects of method of test administration, (b) examine the criterion-related validity of the tests by taking method of test administration into account, and (c) explore the robustness of the paradigm with respect to changes in instruments and populations. Analysis indicated enhanced performance under partially elaborative conditions (3 and 4) as compared to that found for nonelaborative conditions (1 and 2), as well as augmented performance for fully elaborative conditions (5 and 6) as compared to partially elaborative (3 and 4) procedures. All analyses yielded similar findings for both dependent measures. The findings of this investigation may be used as an aid in the development of appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, which would in turn enable classroom learning to be maximal. The research findings may also be useful in gaining maximum validity in prediction of school achievement and ability to profit from particular types of instruction.