Go to navigation
It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:02 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: QM Results
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 1239
Just thought the below information might be helpful in compiling any future stats. I have managed to get some information from QM quoting the FOI and Data Protection Act. Here it is :

Raw Scores
Verbal: 87 Mathematics:42 Non Verbal: 32

Standardised Scores
Verbal: 117 Mathematics: 134 Non Verbal: 125

Weighted Score
Total Weighted Standardised Score: 371

Rank in Order of Merit: 35


MSD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QM Results
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:35 pm
Posts: 63
Hi,

Thank you for the info. It will be useful.

But, do you have the maximum possible raw scores, or the number of questions, in VR, Maths and NVR for the 2012 test.

What do you mean by "Weighted Score"? Is it age-standardized score?

VZA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QM Results
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 1239
I did ask but they didn't seem to know what the total raw score was out of for each section. I only noticed the weighted score now. The three standardised scores add up to 376 but the total weighted standardised score is 371. So I guess weighted is age standardised as my son is September born and lost 5 points due to that.

MSD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QM Results
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:35 pm
Posts: 63
Hi,

Thank you for the info.

Unfortunately, without the maximum possible raw scores, no further deduction is possible. Perhaps someone will post the maximum raw scores, or the number of questions in VR, Maths and NVR for this test.

However, from the previous results (Correlation between Raw score and Standardized score) the score of 371 correspond to combined raw score of 70% (+/- 3.0%).

It is also interesting to see the Age-Standardized Score was only 5 mark less than the actual score. For September-born child, compared to the middle of age profile, I expect a drop of about 9 marks for an average score of 300. Your son results reinforce the point that the effect of age on standardized score is not uniform, and decreases as standardized score increases (ceiling effect).

Regards
VZA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QM Results
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Essex
Doesn't "Standardisation" of the scores impliy some calculation with regard to the age of the candidate (and/ or some reference to e.g. the results of the tests taken at some previous point in time, as at least used to be the case with the CSSE (Essex / Southend exams))?

"Weighting" implies giving importance to the individual papers other than the obvious - e.g. the CSSE papers are weighted VR 50% / English 25% / Maths 25% when the candidate's overall score is calculated.

_________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QM Results
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:35 pm
Posts: 63
Hi ToadMum

I quite agree with you. I asked the same question from MSD. But, sometimes the council get its terminology wrong or gives the incorrect info.

However, if the scores were weighted VR 50% / English 25% / Maths 25%, then the weighted score is 369.75. Normally when this method is used, like in KE consortium in Birmingham, results are reported as an aggregate standardised marks of two sections with a mean score of 200.

VZA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QM Results
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 1239
It is quite difficult to deduce what they mean by weighted score.

VZA - just to give you an idea of the total number of questions here's my son's overview of the exam.

Two 45 minutes sections :

1st Section
=======================================

1. Comprehension (around 20 question) - About Olympic athletes

2. Missing letter Cloze (around 25 missing words)

3. Antonyms/Synonyms (around 25 synonyms, 25 antonyms)

4. Jumbled up sentences (around 25)

2nd Section
========================================

1. NVR - 6 boxes with 2d shapes, 1 missing (around 24 questions)

2. Maths problem solving - 7 section with around 6 sub questions

3. NVR - sequences (around 20 questions)

Here is the exact content of letter I received from QM :

I am writing further to your request for information, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, on
your son's recent result in the School's Entrance Examination.

As I mentioned to you when we spoke on the telephone, the School's policy is not to reveal scores or
ranking from the exam, as this can be divisive in terms of pupil perceptions and also is not a good
indicator in terms of future performance at the School.

The information you have requested is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but is
covered under the Data Protection Act 1998. I can therefore confirm the results as follows:

Raw Scores
Verbal: 87 Mathematics:42 Non Verbal: 32

Standardised Scores
Verbal: 117 Mathematics: 134 Non Verbal: 125

Weighted Score
Total Weighted Standardised Score: 371

Rank in Order of Merit: 35

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued interest in your son taking a
place at Queen Mary's Grammar School Walsall and hope that we will see him in September 2013.
Yours sincerely


MSD


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016