EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT ON STANDARDIZED TEST PERFORMANCE¹

Abstract

The effects of two different motivational conditions upon standardized test performance were explored for two student populations. The first study involving 12 trainable retardates showed a significant increase in score on the Metropolitan Readiness Test given under reinforcement conditions when these results were compared with scores taken under standard testing conditions. In a second study, these same results were obtained with a group of 30 normal fourth-graders. An additional study was conducted to determine the effect of different experiences with token reinforcement procedures on test performance. It was found that a group of children with six weeks' exposure to reinforcement for daily academic performance scored higher under both conditions of test administration (standard and reinforcement) than a control group. However, in a single exposure to token reinforcement for correct performance on the Metropolitan Test, both the experimental group and its match control showed a parallel increase in test performance. These findings offer a procedure that yields a more representative assessment of a student's academic achievement than does testing under standard conditions.

Peer Tutoring With or Without Home‐based Reinforcement, for Reading Remediation

“…This might occur as a result of the differential exposure of the groups to reinforcement during training. That this is not likely is suggested by Ayllon and Kelly (1972), who found that previous exposure to a token reinforcement procedure did not affect the degree to which this procedure raised test scores.…”

“…Supplementary readers were also made available for each student. Calibration with SRA material was accomplished using the Fry readability formula (Fry, 1968 Overall change in reading ability was assessed using the oral reading and the comprehension subscales of the Spache Diagnostic Reading Scale (Spache, 1963) Kelly, 1972;Clingman & Fowler, 1975Edlund, 1972;O'Connor & Weiss, 1974 Throughout the study daily reading performance was assessed using the total number of lines read; the number of lines read correctly on first reading; the total of lines correct after the second reading; the number of comprehension questions answered correctly; and the number of comprehension questions answered incorrectly.…”

“…Children were matched in triads. The members of each triad were then randomly assigned to the three experimental groups: control (C); peer tutoring (PT); and peer tutoring plus home-based reinforcement (HB (Parker & Scannell, 1973 Kelly, 1972;Clingman & Fowler, 1975, …”

Fostering and Measuring Skills Interventions That Improve Character and Cognition

“…33 See Ayllon and Kelly (1972); Borghans, Meijers, and ter Weel (2008); Breuning and Zella (1978); Clingman and Fowler (1976);Edlund (1972); Holt and Hobbs (1979) ;Larson, Saccuzzo, and Brown (1994);Segal (2008). This evidence is summarized in and Almlund et al (2011).…”

The Effects of Different Reinforcement Conditions on the Test Performance of Multihandicapped Deaf Children1

“…Studies designed to identify motivational variables that may increase test performance have used a variety of subjects, tests, and incentives. Most investigators (Ayllon and Kelly, 1972;Bergan, McManis, and Melchert, 1971;Edlund, 1972;Hurlock, 1925;Zigler and Butterfield, 1968) have reported that when responses are reinforced or when subjects were prevented from making many errors, test performance was higher than previous performance (and/or the performance of control subjects) under standard conditions. In contrast, Benton (1936) and Zubin (1932), and Tiber and Kennedy (1964) observed no significant difference in performance between subjects tested under standard conditions and those tested under reinforcement conditions.…”