Credit: Alison Yin for EdSource Today

This story was updated June 2, 2015 to include the final version of  the form that parents will receive.

The vocabulary has changed, and so have the numbers and the format. The two-page report that parents will receive later this year describing their children’s results on the new Smarter Balanced tests on the Common Core State Standards will be very different from what they’ve seen in the past.

That’s intentional. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and the State Board of Education are using multiple cues to send a uniform message: Parents shouldn’t compare the new results with scores on past state standardized tests; this year’s English language arts and math tests are, they say, more difficult, and are based on a different set of academic standards. They mark a break from the past.

At its meeting on Wednesday, the State Board of Education approved, with suggestions for changes, a draft of the report, which districts will send home within two months after students take the new test. Although a few districts began giving the Smarter Balanced tests in grades 3 to 8 and grade 11 this week, many will begin after spring break in April and finish in late May or June.

Students who took the old California Standards Tests in English language arts and math received scores on a scale of 150 to 600 points spanning five performance levels, from far below basic to advanced. The Smarter Balanced eliminates those categories and presents test scores differently.

Source: California Department of Education

Students who took the old California Standards Tests in English language arts and math received scores on a scale of 150 to 600 points spanning five performance levels, from far below basic to advanced. Those categories are eliminated on the Smarter Balanced tests, and the scores are presented differently. (Click to enlarge.)

The new report doesn’t use the terms that designated five levels of achievement on the California Standards Tests: far below basic, below basic, basic, proficient and advanced. Instead, Smarter Balanced uses four achievement levels, which state officials have designated: standard not met, standard nearly met, standard met, standard exceeded. The levels will designate the degree of “progress toward mastery of the knowledge and skills needed for success in future coursework. For 11th-graders, they measure the degree to which students are on track to be ready for college or a career after graduating from high school.

For math and English language arts, students will receive a separate composite score between 2,000 and 3,000 points that falls within one of the achievement levels. One complaint about the old state system, known as STAR, was that it emphasized a student’s level of achievement, such as basic. With Smarter Balanced, state officials want to emphasize the growth in a student’s score from year to year. It includes a margin of error line, which shows how a score might have changed if the student had taken the test again.

The sample hypothetical report gives the score for “Juan,” a 5th-grader whose 2,508 points for English language arts falls within the lower range of the third level, standard met, but the margin of error also places him in the upper range of the standard nearly met level (see illustration below). His math score of 2,279 is toward the bottom of the lowest level.

The report for parents on their child's Smarter Balanced  assessment will show a composite score on a range of 2,000 to 3,000 points and the performance level it falls into, in this case the lower end of the third of four levels. It designates that Juan met the expected level of performance measuring skills and knowledge of the Common Core English language arts standards in fifth grade. The lower bar shows how well students nationally did on the Smarter Balanced field test last year. Critics say that is an invalid comparison.

Credit: California Department of Education

The report for parents on their child’s Smarter Balanced assessment will show a composite score on a range of 2,000 to 3,000 points and the performance level it falls into, in this case the lower end of the third of four levels. It designates that Juan met the expected level of performance measuring skills and knowledge of the Common Core English language arts standards in fifth grade. The lower bar shows how well students nationally did on the Smarter Balanced field test last year. Critics say that is an invalid comparison.

“The message we are sending is complex and multi-faceted,” said state board President Michael Kirst. “This is a new test that shouldn’t be compared with the old test. It’s a more difficult test with new standards, and the scoring levels are not as precise as they might appear.”

Although the reports will likely go to parents in late summer, teachers should receive electronically the scores of students in their classes within a month of the test. That’s much quicker than in the past and should enable teachers to determine where to focus attention in the final weeks of school and which students need help in specific content areas.

The report will also feature a graphic that will show how a student’s score compares with the average score on the “practice” Smarter Balanced tests in math and English language arts that students in California and other consortium states took last year. Doug McRae, a retired educational measurement specialist and critic of the state board’s overall handling of Smarter Balanced, chastised the use of this comparison in comments to the board. The purpose of the field test was to help weed out questions for this year’s test, and students arbitrarily were given questions with various degrees of difficulty; no student was given the full range of problems, making any comparison unreliable, he said.

During their discussion of the report on Wednesday, state board members were divided on whether the results from the field test should be included. Education groups had conflicting opinions as well, with the California School Boards Association supporting including the information and the California Teachers Association opposed, unless the report includes a clarification on the reliability of field test results.

Board member Bruce Holaday said that it is important for parents to have some frame of reference “like putting a ruler next to the rock on the moon,” and the field test results do that.

But board member Aida Molina asked if the report might be misinforming parents by presenting an invalid comparison. Particularly if a student’s score is lower than the average on the field test, the message to parents would be, “Here we are a year later and no better off.”

Tony Alpert, executive director of Smarter Balanced, acknowledged that parents could reach that conclusion, and suggested that training for teachers and an interpretive guide could “mitigate” that possibility.

After further discussion, the board approved the report while suggesting that the state Department of Education, which wrote the draft, elaborate on who took the field test and how parents should view the information.

Keric Ashley, interim deputy state superintendent, downplayed the importance of the field test comparison in an interview, saying that the purpose was to provide parents “a larger context” of where their students’ scores fell relative to other students.

(Update: After further reflection, the state Department of Education eliminated the comparison with last year’s field test and will not include a comparison with this year’s results of other students from California.  State, school and district scores will be released separately this fall. During a webinar on the parent reports in May, Ashley said that the parents form will be reviewed and possibly revised again next year.  Here is the final version that parents will receive.)

The student report breaks down the total score into broad skills stressed by Common Core and tested by Smarter Balanced. In this hypothetical example, 5th grader Juan did well in reading but poorly on a performance task measuring his research and inquiry skills. He did well on problem solving in math but poorly in other areas.

Source: California Department of Education

The student report breaks down the total score into broad skills stressed by Common Core and tested by Smarter Balanced. In this hypothetical example, 5th grader Juan did well in reading but poorly on a performance task measuring his research and inquiry skills. He did well on problem solving in math but poorly in other areas. (Click to enlarge.)

The second page of the report elaborates on the purpose of the Smarter Balanced test, which, it says, includes awider variety of questions than traditional multiple-choice tests and include tasks and test items that require students to explain how they solve problems.” It breaks down the overall score into components that the Common Core standards stress. These include reading, writing, listening and research/inquiry skills in the 5th-grade English language arts test and problem solving, concepts and procedures and communicating reasoning for 5th-grade math. In the hypothetical report, Juan’s results put him “above standard” in reading but “below standard” in research/inquiry.

By comparison, a similar math report to parents for the California Standards Tests (see pages 40-41) included a breakdown for decimals, fractions and negative numbers, operations and factoring, and algebra and functions.

The Smarter Balanced components measure “overarching, higher order skills that students need to succeed as they progress though the grades” and can’t be compared with the more specific skills that were on the previous tests, Kirst said.

A two-page sheet prevents the ability to explain Smarter Balanced and the new standards in depth, Ashley said, adding that the state will post a comprehensive guide to the tests on the state Department of Education website. Districts may also supplement the material that they send home with the parent reports, he said. Test results should be just one piece of a larger discussion about how a child is performing, he said.

The test results for schools and district results won’t be available until early fall, similar to the past schedule. This year’s Smarter Balanced scores will be the baseline for measuring school improvement, but the state board hasn’t determined when and how schools and districts will be held accountable for the results.

The Association of California School Administrators and other education groups have called on the state board to use this year’s results essentially as a practice test, without any accountability purpose, because teachers are still being trained in Common Core, and many students have not had any experience with online tests.

But Kirst said that the baseline scores “will simply say where we are now” – nothing more. The board hasn’t decided how future results, showing growth toward yet-to-be-determined statewide target scores, will be used, he said. Meanwhile, the state board is committed to being transparent with results, he said.

 


Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

Expand Comments
Collapse Comments
  1. diana 2 weeks ago2 weeks ago

    is there a place for parents to access their student’s scores online?

  2. rob 10 months ago10 months ago

    This test should include percentile rankings associated with the scores. Parents would like to know where their child stands.

    Replies

    • woodstocksez 10 months ago10 months ago

      I agree. More context would be useful.

  3. rob 10 months ago10 months ago

    My guess is the state held off releasing scores until students were well into the new school year, making it difficult for parents to leave for private schools for the current year due to the fact they were unhappy with their child’s scores. Parents should have these scores in the summer before they need to make decisions about school placement for the coming school year.

    Replies

    • woodstocksez 10 months ago10 months ago

      I think that using these test results (or any test results, really) to decide whether to move your child to a different school is misguided, unless you’re looking at the entirety of a school’s results to decide whether the students at that school constitute an environment in which you want your child learning.

  4. Armando Benavides 10 months ago10 months ago

    Parents want to know where their students are in terms of standards at each grade level. Plain and simple. The new tests that were administered may be more rigorous and demanding and more challenging but they still provide vital information to parents as to where their child falls in a given range of test scores. The growth concept being advocated by the Department of Education Leadership appears to be avoiding one very … Read More

    Parents want to know where their students are in terms of standards at each grade level. Plain and simple. The new tests that were administered may be more rigorous and demanding and more challenging but they still provide vital information to parents as to where their child falls in a given range of test scores.

    The growth concept being advocated by the Department of Education Leadership appears to be avoiding one very important component of testing- accountability. We parents should be concerned that in last year’s testing over 50% of students fell in the lower two new classifications, which indicates they did not have mastery of the standards at their grade level. Parents cannot disregard that data. The growth model is unsatisfactory measurement to gauge accountability to ensure we do not accept that 50% of students are below grade level standards.

    Replies

    • woodstocksez 10 months ago10 months ago

      I'm confused as to what you're getting at here. Would you prefer lower standards so that the overwhelming majority of students would meet them and everyone would feel good? And on the subject of accountability, I am continually amazed at how complaining parents seem never to discuss the most important accountability: their own. The environment you provide for your child's learning will have a greater impact on their achievement than most any teacher … Read More

      I’m confused as to what you’re getting at here. Would you prefer lower standards so that the overwhelming majority of students would meet them and everyone would feel good?

      And on the subject of accountability, I am continually amazed at how complaining parents seem never to discuss the most important accountability: their own. The environment you provide for your child’s learning will have a greater impact on their achievement than most any teacher will. Schools aren’t factories into which you provide your untutored child as input and receive back a well-educated adult. Teachers and schools matter, but they are not solely (or even most importantly) responsible for what your child becomes. It’s a cop-out for parents to foist that on them.

  5. Yolanda Flanagan 11 months ago11 months ago

    Test results should have already reached parents long before the month of August. We as parents have important decisions to make in our children’s education—can’t believe we have to wait until the fall, for the results–that’s almost one third of the school-year gone and too late to make any changes.

  6. Elaine Bidnick 12 months ago12 months ago

    As a retired ESL or ELA or more commonly classified INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANT.. bilingual program.. I am glad to see that scoring will now show students progress and also how well they study.. hopefully this new scoring will weed out TEACHING TO THE TEST ( classes only covering what js expected on the next test) which has happened I the past at most schools to be able to show progress by students….

  7. Concerned Parent 1 year ago1 year ago

    I am shocked and disappointing about the California Education System this year. At the very beginning the teacher in my daughter school(grade 3)was explaining the Comon Core system,that is a new for 3rd graders-obviously new for the teacher as well,because it has proved trough the year.All of the teacher's material was rushing,math was also 2-3 lessons per day just because she needed to finish her schedule on time and poor kids has no time to assimilate … Read More

    I am shocked and disappointing about the California Education System this year.
    At the very beginning the teacher in my daughter school(grade 3)was explaining the Comon Core system,that is a new for 3rd graders-obviously new for the teacher as well,because it has proved trough the year.All of the teacher’s material was rushing,math was also 2-3 lessons per day just because she needed to finish her schedule on time and poor kids has no time to assimilate the material as well as my time as a parent that I spend to teach the lessons all over again was very frustrating.
    However,we hold on and try to do our best to fit with the system,however the the “cherry on the top of the ice cream ” was the CAASPP Tests.
    I am one of the parents that respect technology,but do not let my kids using very often computers unless is something connected with school tasks.However,my 3rd grader was pushed all year for writing,spelling LA and Math tests on paper,and suddenly the teacher a week before the CAASPP Tests announced the they will have a test on a computer.This is absolutely insane,in case the even didn’t have a single lesson of typing.How you expect to have full result if the kids have trouble typing,this is the same to tell the to learn German in one week.Absolutely ridiculous.I wasn’t be worried if this tests was on paper,the kids are confused not just because don’t have the knowledge,but because they are confused to find the key,that is why this test in my opinion will be disaster for California education,and if some kids made it, that would be not a credit for the school, but the parents and additional payment for tutors.

    Replies

    • Not Sure What To Think Parent 1 year ago1 year ago

      Well, I think the State of California is not doing a good job in how it rolls out testing with technology. The test is bad in my opinion, and may not accurately reflect a student's knowledge. Also, the teachers seem to be mum on the whole thing in California. I guess they get a vast teacher raise and they are wanting it, and so, they have maybe agreed to not say anything negative about a test that … Read More

      Well,

      I think the State of California is not doing a good job in how it rolls out testing with technology.

      The test is bad in my opinion, and may not accurately reflect a student’s knowledge.

      Also, the teachers seem to be mum on the whole thing in California.

      I guess they get a vast teacher raise and they are wanting it, and so, they have maybe agreed to not say anything negative about a test that they too may not think is good to administer to children for many astute reasons that they know, for they know more than others since they teach.

      • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

        Yes, some teachers are getting up to 1% for each of the last 7 years when they received 0% per year. Or, because of furlough days, received a cut in salary.

        We will review the definition of “vast” for the next vocabulary test.

  8. Concerned Parent 1 year ago1 year ago

    Dear Author Of This Article, Mr. Fensterwald, I have tried e mailing you with questions and you do not respond to my e mail. Maybe you get many e mails, I am not sure. What my point is here is that the California State Board of Education, the S.B.E. is in my opinion teaching the California Department of Education and also emulating in effect to all school boards in California (modeling) and thus all schools (for the tone of … Read More

    Dear Author Of This Article,

    Mr. Fensterwald,

    I have tried e mailing you with questions and you do not respond to my e mail.

    Maybe you get many e mails, I am not sure.

    What my point is here is that the California State Board of Education, the S.B.E. is in my opinion teaching the California Department of Education and also emulating in effect to all school boards in California (modeling) and thus all schools (for the tone of the school board and school district is carried down to the tone of the principals and also to the teachers, who are hired by the principals etc.

    that…

    This is how we can con artist the parents.

    So, to be specific, as a parent.

    I believe, the use of the old Smarter Balance test as a barometer for the growth of the new CAASPP test (results to be sent to parents this summer (June or July of 2015), is bad.

    It is not trustworthy for the S.B.E. leaders and Mr. Tom Torlakson (who we are suppose to honor with leading our Educaitonal System).

    I believe our society is being led by leaders who are not honorable in doing such things.

    This in my opinion is hoodwinking the parents to see a dumbed down barometer of growth so that parents will be lulled into disregarding the fact that the CAASPP is not a good test and is not working properly and thus our schools are not using it to measure school efficacy.

    I applaud your article, Mr Fensterwald, but I would also appreciate it if you would respond to your e mail questions.

    I am very disappointed in the S.B.E. leadership. I encourage all to view their video taped meetings.

    I am also very sad the way our California is being led by our California Department of Education.

    It should be pointed out, if anyone tries to mail a letter to the individual members or all members of the State Board of Education, the secretary of the S.B.E. will not distribute them, but instead decide if the information (what information) will be disseminated to the S.B.E. board.

    Thus we have a buffer system of parents e mails going to the S.B.E. members and the only way to communicate to them with clarity of knowing that views of a parent(s) are getting through is for a parent to drive up to Sacramento and try to speak during public comments time for three minutes.

    Most parents cannot take the time off of work (some work two jobs) and thus our leadership is not, in my opinion, unlike, the ancient way Rome was run with leaders wearing togas.

    Concerned Parent

    (also, if I can, I will be driving up to Sacramento with proper protocol to speak my 3 minutes and get my views told directly to the S.B.E. members)

    I think it stinks that the S.B.E. leaders (some of whom I admire with their strong thinking and knowledge) would allow the Smarter Balance CAASPP to show old results from a flawed test process from 2013-2014 to be used as a barometer to trick parents in understanding growth of their child this year 2014-2015.

    Also, I believe, and this is just my humble opinion. Many schools do not even take time to teach how to use the computers or Smarter Balance CAASPP test or methods due to a secret philosophy of:

    (Imaginary Local School District Informal Talk With School District Decision Makers With No People Present Of Other Stakeholders Such As Parents)

    Hey, lets (imaginary school official) just hold off on teaching even how to take the smarter balance California CAASPP test because we can start with a real real low baseline this year and then grow it say 1 or 2% in the years to come to make the California Department of Education real happy and to not be held accountable for true quality education of children, because we have learned from how the S.B.E. runs their meetings that they too are doing things that are bad, so why not us.

  9. Harold Capenter 1 year ago1 year ago

    Sorry for the couple of typo's - Here's my comment on EdSource.org: Won't matter how "different" past STAR test was compared to the Smarter Balanced CAASPP Test will be in the future. The new test are not valid and are not reliable measures. Why? Because the data from the previous year, "virtually all students failed the test, including academically advanced students (meaning "A" students). Thought the State DOE will not report 2015 scores, or use … Read More

    Sorry for the couple of typo’s – Here’s my comment on EdSource.org: Won’t matter how “different” past STAR test was compared to the Smarter Balanced CAASPP Test will be in the future. The new test are not valid and are not reliable measures. Why? Because the data from the previous year, “virtually all students failed the test, including academically advanced students (meaning “A” students). Thought the State DOE will not report 2015 scores, or use them API, “accountability” for 2015, the scores will remain the same invalid/unreliable and it won’t stop the tsunami of parents in 2016 who once they learn the truth will be very dissatisfied with the State DOE hiding behind “one more year”. Plus if you are a student at risk, minority, or ELL your scores are likely to reflect a 95% or higher failure rate to meet the standards = academically advanced. Not only do the standards suck, but so do the test. These test cost big bucks, 5 times greater than the STAR TEST for a bunch of junk. In the end, all this year scores and last year scores are doing is using my kids like a experimental rats. http://missourieducationwatchdog.com/sbac-tests-show-no…/

  10. Doug McRae 1 year ago1 year ago

    The updated reporting on the discussion of the new ISR was interesting, but barely scratched the surface on the issue whether the validity of the comparison of individual student 2015 scores to 2014 field test "averages." Holaday's frame of reference argument ["ruler next to rock on moon" reflects what parents want and need, but ignores whether the ruler being used has an accurate calibration; a ruler reflecting feet provides a far different interpretation than a … Read More

    The updated reporting on the discussion of the new ISR was interesting, but barely scratched the surface on the issue whether the validity of the comparison of individual student 2015 scores to 2014 field test “averages.” Holaday’s frame of reference argument [“ruler next to rock on moon” reflects what parents want and need, but ignores whether the ruler being used has an accurate calibration; a ruler reflecting feet provides a far different interpretation than a ruler reflecting inches]. Molina’s comment focused on message from last year to this year for an individual student as being inappropriate, and that focus is on target but can be multiplied in spades for interpretations for entire groups [schools, districts, subgroups like EL, low-SES, SWD, entire CA] comparisons; with vastly different percentages of students having had the opportunity to learn common core material by spring 2014 vs spring 2015 [national estimates from the Ctr Educ Prog in Wash, DC, last Oct put common core instruction at roughly 1/3 of the LEAs across the country in 2014, vs a projected 2/3 for spring 2015, using a solid random sample of LEA data to collect the data; status of implementation of common core instruction in CA is fuzzy and solid data unavailable, but my sense is CA’s implementation of CC instruction lags national implementation due to fiscal restraints preventing start-up of CC instruction efforts until 2012, two years after adoption of CC standards in 2010, with greater lags in LEAs servicing high percentages of low-SES and EL students], the comparison of 2015 results to 2014 field test projections is apples to oranges at best. Most certainly, the 2014 field test “projected” results released by SBAC last Nov do not constitute reasonable “baseline” information for either long term or high stakes accountability use of the SBAC data. Alpert from SBAC danced around the validity of comparisons question, implying that an actual comparison might not be valid but rather the data in the recommended ISR could be useful for “context” — So, now, how are we going to educate 3.2 million parents on the nuances of “comparison” vs “context?” After the discussion, the board punted the validity issue back to its Ex Dir to approve “technical changes” to the recommended ISR.

    It was revealing that the core issue of “opportunity to learn” or status of implementation of common core instruction in California was never really raised during the board discussion, not directly by board members, not by CDE staff, not by Alpert from SBAC. Officials from ETS were in the front of the room, perhaps 10-15 feet from the podium, waiting for their turn to address the board for the next item on the agenda which dealt with designating a vendor for the entire CAASPP program for 2016-17-18. Included in their delegation were national experts on the validity of tests for all contexts. They did not volunteer to speak on this validity issue involving the primary communication mechanism for test results for 3.2 million parents in CA, nor were they called to the podium by the SBE or CDE or SBAC representatives — yet, they are CA’s vendor for the 2015 CAASPP program, and they were the technical support vendor for SBAC’s 4-year test development contract for the feds. And, to boot, the ETS president when he was speaking later described the ETS fundamental mission as an organization was to produce and advance the validity and reliability and quality of use of data from the testing enterprise across the country. But, to defend ETS lack of voice on the specific issue being discussed by CA’s State Board, I should note ETS is under a “gag” order in their contract with CDE not to speak in public on technical or other issues involving the CAASPP program without permission from CDE; I don’t know for sure, but probably ETS was probably under a similar “gag” order from their SBAC contract. So, I guess, they had good reason not to speak up to clarify the validity issue being discussed by the board, unless asked to do so by SBE or CDE or SBAC.

    The comparison of 2015 actual results, either individual student or aggregated data, to 2014 “projected” averages is not a valid comparison, for a multitude of reasons . . . . . starting with the opportunity to learn situation but also going into more technical discussions ffor how the “projected” 2014 results were derived by SBAC [who, to defend them a tad, have always described the technical work to develop the scales and set threshold scores based on 2014 field test data as “preliminary” work to be validated by 2015 actual results; this description has been muddied in recent months, as was illustrated by Alpert’s discussion at the meeting two days ago]. It doesn’t belong in a first year ISR for the CAASPP program, and shouldn’t be in a communication device to 3.2 million parents until the comparison is on solid ground. I only hope the SBE Ex Dir takes the time and has the good sense to make a technical edit to exclude this misleading comparison from the 2015 ISR, despite pressure from those who want the comparison even if it is invalid and leads to misinterpretation of 2015 SBAC scores.

    Replies

    • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

      Doug, as I referenced on another post, parents really don’t want more testing information. In fact, they don’t really want more tests as they perceive them (in agreement with the National Research Council) as having been damaging to the public schools. Just because the “voices” heard about testing are loud and aggressive (and are manly Astroturf) does not appear to suggest they are the voices of the majority.

  11. navigio 1 year ago1 year ago

    Which of juan’s potential results will we use to decide whether to fire his teacher?

    Replies

    • woodstocksez 10 months ago10 months ago

      If you advocate firing teachers based on student results, you really don't understand the nature of education. Juan's results depend on him, first and foremost, then on a variety of influences, including his parents, neighborhood, culture, teachers, etc. Teachers are not the most influential on the list. I am not a teacher, but I am sick of the attitude that teachers and schools bear sole, or nearly sole, responsibility for educational outcomes. … Read More

      If you advocate firing teachers based on student results, you really don’t understand the nature of education. Juan’s results depend on him, first and foremost, then on a variety of influences, including his parents, neighborhood, culture, teachers, etc. Teachers are not the most influential on the list. I am not a teacher, but I am sick of the attitude that teachers and schools bear sole, or nearly sole, responsibility for educational outcomes. It is long past time for students and parents to accept that those outcomes depend primarily on them.

  12. Patricia Kephart 1 year ago1 year ago

    Last year's test was only for practice. It told districts how their computers stood up to the test. Ours were so slow we had to read books waiting for items to load. How can those conditions yeild comparative results? Taking the practice test last week, chrome books crashed every five minutes. Frustrated ten year olds gave up. Will this problem be fixed in a month? Will scores under these stressful conditions be … Read More

    Last year’s test was only for practice. It told districts how their computers stood up to the test. Ours were so slow we had to read books waiting for items to load. How can those conditions yeild comparative results?

    Taking the practice test last week, chrome books crashed every five minutes. Frustrated ten year olds gave up. Will this problem be fixed in a month? Will scores under these stressful conditions be reasonable baseline scores? Please investigate this roll out.

  13. Paul Muench 1 year ago1 year ago

    How many standard deviations is the box around the average showing?

Template last modified: