CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
5.4 RESULTS 90
5.4.10 Mental ability tests and assessment techniques 98
5.4.10.1 Mental ability tests
According to Figure 5.8, most assessors rated ASB at 36% as good followed by PPG (30%), Draw a person was at (24%), Group test (21%) and Ravens (15%). Some of the assessors rated the same tests as poor. Draw a person was rated poor at 18%, Group test and Ravens were rated poor at 15%, PPG 9% and ASB at 21%. It is important to highlight that while some assessors rated these tests good, others rated them average. On average, the Draw a person test was rated at 27%, Group test and Ravens at 18%, PPG 24% and ASB at 15%.
99
15 12
9
15
9
24 21
15
30
36 27
18 18
24 18 15
15 15
9
21
9 9
24
0 0
6
24
18 21
18
0 20 40 60 80 100
DRAW A PER. GROUP TEST RAVENS PPG ASB
Very good Good F/AV Poor Very Poor Not applicable
FiFigguurree 55..88 RaRattiinngg ooff mmeennttaall aabbiilliittyy tteessttss ((aa))
In Figure 5.9 below, SSAIS-R was rated good at 48%, followed by BENDER at (36%), PPG (30%), JSAIS (27%), GROVER (18%), RAVENS (15%) and IGSSA (6%). SSAIS-R was also rated very good at 27%, BENDER (18%), JSAIS and PPG were rated at 15%, GROVER, IGSSA and RAVENS were all rated at 9% each. Interesting enough SSAIS-R was rated average at 9%, JSAIS and IGSSA at (33%), BENDER (15%), GROVER and PPG at (24%) and RAVENS at (18%).
27
15 18
9 9 9
15 48
27
36
18
6
15
30
9
33
15
24
33
18
24
0
9 12
6 6
15
9 0
6
0 3
9
24
0 15
9
18
39 36
18 21
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSAIS-R JSAIS BENDER GROVER ISGSA RAVENS PPG
Very good Good F/AV Poor Very Poor Not applicable
Figure 5.9 Rating of mental ability tests (b)
100
5.4.10.2 Assessment techniques
Figure 5.10 below shows assessment tools which are used by assessors for personality evaluation. It is important to bring in this data, as some learners needed personality evaluation in order to enhance their scholastic performance or plan their career path. Figure 5.10 shows that SAPQ was rated good at 30%, JPQ (24%), 19-FII (27%), JAT (21%), SSHA and HSPQ (18%) and 16PF (15%). On the other hand, SAPQ was rated very good at 21%, JPQ and 19-FII at (18%), JAT and SSHA (12%) and HSPQ and 16PF at (9%). On average SAPQ and JAT were rated at 27%, JPQ (30%), 19-FII and 16PF (24%), SSHA and HSPQ (21%). This figure shows a small difference between rating an instrument good and average. It might be that participants were uncertain about whether an instrument was good or not. Another reason could have been that in the questionnaire a respondent had to give a reason for choosing “poor”. Most participants might have avoided giving a reason and so they decided to choose “average”.
21 18 18
12 12
9 9
30
24 27
21 18 18
15
27 30
24 27
21 21 24
9 12
9
18 15 15
6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 15
21 21
33 36
45
0 20 40 60 80 100
S APQ JPQ 19-FII JAT SSHA HS PQ 16PF
Very good Good F/AV Poor Very Poor Not applicable
FiFigguurree 55..1100 RRaattiningg ooff ppeerrssoonnaalliittyy eevvaalluuaattiioonn ttoooollss ((a)a)
Figure 5.11 below shows Play Therapy being rated good at 36%, Reading and Spelling Test at 18%, Narrative Approach 24%, Check List 18% and In Complete Test at 12%. It is also important to note that while Play Therapy was rated good at 36%, it was also rated average at 21%. There is a small difference in ratings. Reading and Spelling Test, and In Complete Test were all rated at 36%
average, Narrative Approach 33% and Check List at 21%.
101
15
9 9 9 6
36
18
24
18
12 21
36 33
21
36
0
27
6
15 15
0 0 0
24 24
27
9
27
12
6 0
20 40 60 80 100
PLAY THERAPY READ. & SPE. NARRATIVE AP. CHECK LIST IN COMPLETE Very good Good F/AV Poor Very Poor Not applicable
FiFigguurree 55..1111 RRaattiinngg ooff eevvaalluuaattiioonn ttoooollss ((bb))
Figure 5.12 shows the rating of tests by assessors in terms of their preferences. That a test is preferred by most assessors does not necessarily meant that it is good; it is just that they prefer it over others. In figure 12, SSAIS-R was preferred by most participants at 39%, followed by BENDER at (33%), GROVER (12%), IGSSA and JSAIS (15%) and HFD at (6%). It is also interesting to note that HFD was rated at (3%) less preferred half the rate at which it was rated preferred. BENDER and GROVER were rated less preferred at (12%) each, whiles SSAIS-R and IGSA were rated at 18% each less preferred and lastly JSAIS was rated less preferred at 21%.
3
15 9 12 9 9
6
33
21
39
15 15
3
12 12 18 18 21
0
9 9 6 9 6
0
18
36
12 18 15
88
12 12 12
30 33
0 20 40 60 80 100
HFD BENDER GROVER SSAIS-R ISGSA JSAIS
Most Preferred Preferred Less Preferred Least Preferred Not Preferred. Not Applicable
Figure 5.12 Rating of preference of tests
102
Figures 5.13 and 5.14 below show the rating of assessment tests that are used only by speech and audiologists. Figure 5.13 shows a high rating of up to 61% on not applicable. The reason is that these instruments were only used by speech therapists and audiologists which formed only 12% of the total research sample. The majority of the participants in the sample were not using these tests.
Speech and audiologists rated HFD and AST good at 18%, IMMETANCE and FLUHARTY were rated at 15% each and TOLD was at 12%. On fair or average rating, HFD, IMMETANCE and FLUHARTY were rated at 12% each. AST was rated at 9% and TOLD at 15%.
6 6 6 6 6
18 15 18
15 12
12 12
9 12 15
24
6
21 18
9 9
0 0 0
30
61
45 48
58
0 20 40 60 80 100
HFD IMMETANCE AST FLUHARTY TOLD
0 Very good Good F/AV Poor Very Poor Not applicable
FiFigguurree 55..1133 RRaattiningg ooff SSppeeeecchh aanndd AAuuddiioollooggyy tteessttss ((aa))
In Figure 5.14, Audiometer was rated good at 18% and 6% average. TACL-R and ARTICULATION were both rated good at 21% each. TACL-R was rated at 12% average and ARTICULATION at 18%. OTOSCOPE was rated at 12% both good and average and PENDULUM was at 15% good and 25% average. The rating of these instruments looks more or less the same at very good, good and fair or average. It looks like participants did not want to commit themselves on ratings or there could have been another reason which was not evident.
103
12 9 9
6 6
18 21 21
12 15
6
12
18
12
24
0
15 12
9 6
0 0 0 0 0
64
42 39
61
48
0 20 40 60 80 100
AUDIOMETER TACL-R ARTICULATION OTOSCOPE PENDULUM
Very g ood Good F/AV Poor Very Poor Not applicable
FiFigguurree 55..1144 RRaattiningg ooff ssppeeeecchh aanndd aauuddiioollooggyy ttesesttss ((bb))
5.5 FILE ANALYSIS OF LEARNERS REFERRED FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL