This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
See this talk page for a discussion about the copyright issue for the image on this page. Chris53516 13:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
A user posted a conversion chart ( PDF from the Texas education department) that displays a conversion from percentile ranks to normal curve equivalents. I checked this with some software I use for another test, and it was the same. I thought that the conversion was dependent on the normative sample that took the test, so I though that each chart would be different. After I checked it on my software, I'm not so sure. Can we get an statistics expert to weigh in on this issue? — Chris53516 ( Talk) 18:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In its present form this article is misleading and weird.
As the concept is defined here, the only difference between a z-score and a "normal curve equivalent" is that z-scores make the average 0 and the standard deviation 1, whereas these make the average 50 and the standard deviation 21.06.
Just as with z-scores, this is applicable just as much if scores are not normally distributed ("bell-shaped") as it is if they are. The normal distribution plays no role at all in the definition of the concept, yet the name of the concept suggests otherwise.
The number 21.06 looks arbitrary. The article does not hint at where it came from. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Some excerpts:
[sic]
If the formula given is correct, then this is not based on percentile rank, and it has nothing to do with the normal curve. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The web page linked to instantly clarifies in few words what nobody bothered to say in the article with its many words. This really looks like something written by someone in the habit of taking mathematical formulas as dogma without wondering why they make sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
In this edit I got rid of some nonsense and explained where the number 21.06 came from. Whoever wrote this seems gullibly credulous about mathematical assertions. I'll be back for more. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
See this talk page for a discussion about the copyright issue for the image on this page. Chris53516 13:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
A user posted a conversion chart ( PDF from the Texas education department) that displays a conversion from percentile ranks to normal curve equivalents. I checked this with some software I use for another test, and it was the same. I thought that the conversion was dependent on the normative sample that took the test, so I though that each chart would be different. After I checked it on my software, I'm not so sure. Can we get an statistics expert to weigh in on this issue? — Chris53516 ( Talk) 18:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In its present form this article is misleading and weird.
As the concept is defined here, the only difference between a z-score and a "normal curve equivalent" is that z-scores make the average 0 and the standard deviation 1, whereas these make the average 50 and the standard deviation 21.06.
Just as with z-scores, this is applicable just as much if scores are not normally distributed ("bell-shaped") as it is if they are. The normal distribution plays no role at all in the definition of the concept, yet the name of the concept suggests otherwise.
The number 21.06 looks arbitrary. The article does not hint at where it came from. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Some excerpts:
[sic]
If the formula given is correct, then this is not based on percentile rank, and it has nothing to do with the normal curve. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The web page linked to instantly clarifies in few words what nobody bothered to say in the article with its many words. This really looks like something written by someone in the habit of taking mathematical formulas as dogma without wondering why they make sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
In this edit I got rid of some nonsense and explained where the number 21.06 came from. Whoever wrote this seems gullibly credulous about mathematical assertions. I'll be back for more. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)