Academic Achievement Battery - PAR, Inc
AABTMAcademic Achievement BatteryAcademic Achievement Battery:Development of a Novel Approach toAssessing Reading ComprehensionMelissa A. Messer, MHSJennifer A. Greene, PhD
Executive SummaryThe Academic Achievement Battery (AAB) assesses basicacademic skills, such as reading, spelling, and math.A subtest within the AAB, Reading Comprehension:Passages (RC: P), Uses the sentence identificationmethod to assess strengths and weaknesses in readingcomprehension across a wide age and grade range.The RC: P subtest represents an improvement to mosttraditional reading assessments, which are susceptible to“passageless” comprehension, or the likelihood that anexaminee could respond correctly without ever readingthe corresponding passage. The evidence presented inthis white paper demonstrates the RC: P subtest is areliable and valid assessment of reading comprehensionand, as a result, provides professionals with a valid toolto examine reading comprehension skills.2
IntroductionIn 1997, a National Reading Panel was established with a goal toevaluate existing research and evidence to find the best ways to teachchildren to read. Panel members determined five essential componentsof reading instruction and identified the following necessary steps toreading proficiency: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,and reading comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000; see Figure1). Most educators agree that although the concept of reading comprehension may seem simple, it is not necessarily easy to teach, learn, orpractice. Despite the National Reading Panel’s research (concluded in2000) and following years of research by others on teaching andassessing reading comprehension, “understanding and measurement ofthis ability has proven elusive” (McGrew, Moen, & Thurlow, 2010, p. 1).There are various definitions of what constitutes reading comprehension, and as a result, there are a wide variety of methods that havebeen developed to assess it (Morsy, Kieffer, & Snow, 2010; Pearson &Hamm, 2005). Although multiple definitions exist (with little consensus), even the earliest definitions focused on thinking about text(Thorndike, 1917). Overall, there tends to be agreement regardingthe basic building blocks required to master reading comprehension(see Figure 1). More recently, the focus has shifted to the interactiveprocess of reading (National Center for Edu ca tion Statistics, 2005).Accurate assessment ofreading comprehensionis necessary not only toidentify reading comprehension difficultiesbut also to plan andmonitor interventionsaimed at improvingreading comprehension.Accurate assessment of reading comprehension is necessary notonly to identify reading comprehension difficulties but also to plan andmonitor interventions aimed at improving reading comprehension.A large assortment of formats have been developed and utilized forthe purpose of assessing reading comprehension (see Morsy et al.,2010; Spear-Swerling, 2006). In general, these various measurescorrelate significantly, and quite sub stantially, with each other.However, there is evidence that the differing formats may tapabilities that underlie reading comprehension (e.g., decod ing,voca b u lary, listening comprehension, working memory,reading rate, fluency). Each of these methods may beComprehensioncriticized for introducing additional constructs, andthese confounds could have a significant impact onwhat is actually being assessed (e.g., knowledgeVocabularyof the question, vocabulary knowledge, ability toarticulate orally to express response [PearsonFluency& Hamm, 2005]). The following presents abrief review of the most common readingcomprehension assessment formats. ForPhonicsa more detailed historical review ofthe foundations of read ing comprehension assess ment, refer toPhonemic AwarenessParis and Stahl (2005).Reading PyramidFigure 1. National Reading Panel’s steps to reading proficiency.3
Overview of Traditional ReadingComprehension Assessment FormatsCloze ProcedureThe cloze procedure refers to “reading closure,” which requires the reader to fillin a missing word or words within a sentence or possibly longer text. The wordcloze is derived from closure in Gestalt theory (Taylor, 1953). The cloze procedurewas originally introduced in 1953 as a tool for readability. Initial studies found themethod to correlate highly with Flesch (1948) and Dale and Chall (1948) techniques for estimating readability (Taylor, 1953). Following Taylor’s work, Chatel(2001) expanded on the purpose and use of the procedure by indicating it could beused as a way to determine how a reader uses the context of a sentence or passageto get meaning from the text. However, Chatel (2001) indicated some concern forusing this with students as a diagnostic tool and believed that test takers tended tofocus on the “blank” and used only the immediate context as opposed to attending tothe entire passage or text.“Passageless”comprehensionrefers to thelike lihood that anexaminee couldrespond correctlyto multiple-choicequestions withoutever reading thecorrespondingpassage.Radice (1978) identified several benefits for utilizing this procedure, includingease of administration, ease of interpreting results, ability to provide feedback to ateacher easily, and flexibility. Several modifications of the cloze procedure havebeen implemented since its original development, including varying the length ofsentences or passages, deletion frequency, fixed interval deletion vs. randomdeletion, allowing of synonyms vs. exact replacement of missing words, and multiplechoice options for missing words.The cloze procedure has been criticized for the ambiguity between whether itassesses individual difference in reading comprehension or if it assesses the“linguistic predictability of the passage to which [the cloze procedure is] applied”(Pearson & Hamm, 2005, p. 24).Even more concerning is research that has established that cloze tests aretypically not sensitive to comprehension that spans a passage. For example,Shanahan, Kamil, and Tobin (1982) used several passage variations to assesscorrect completion rates in cloze procedures. This included randomizing sentenceorder within a passage and across passages and using isolated sentences fromdifferent passages to form a passage. There were no differences found in thecompletion rate for the blanks across the various research conditions, indicating thatan individual’s ability to fill in the blank was not dependent on the passage context.This reflects Chatel’s (2001) concerns noted earlier—that individuals “completingthe blanks” were not integrating text across the passage to complete the task.Multiple-Choice QuestionsOne of the most common formats utilized in reading comprehension assessmentsis the use of multiple-choice questions. In this format, the examinee is required toanswer questions based on a passage that he or she reads. One reason for thepopularity of this format is its ease of development. It’s also a familiar format formost test takers because it is often used in classroom settings. However, a commonconcern raised by a number of researchers is in regard to passage independence, orwhat has been called “passageless” comprehension (Coleman, J. Lindstrom, Nelson,W. Lindstrom, & Gregg, 2010; Ready, Chaudhry, Schatz, & Strazzullo, 2012). Thisrefers to the likelihood that an examinee could respond correctly to multiple-choicequestions (typically based on prior knowledge) without ever reading the corresponding passage. Although it can be argued that “prior knowledge” is a part of4
successful reading comprehension, “passage-independent items arerecognized as major threats to content validity” (Coleman, et al., 2010,p. 244).There are several examples of research uncovering passageindependence on standardized reading compre hen sion measures—including the Minnesota Scholas tic Aptitude Test (Fowler & Kroll, 1978),the Stanford Achieve ment Test (Lifson, Scruggs, & Bennion, 1984), theScholastic Achieve ment Test (SAT; e.g., Daneman & Hannon, 2001;Katz, Lautenschlager, Blackburn, & Harris, 1990), the Gray Oral ReadingTest (GORT; Keenan & Betjemann, 2006), the Nelson-Denny ReadingComprehen sion Test (Coleman et al., 2010), the Canadian AdultAchievement Test (CAAT; Roy-Charland, Colangelo, Foglia, & Reguigui,2017), and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition(WIAT-III; Roy-Charland et al., 2017).Development of a NewReading Comprehension AssessmentThe various forms of the Academic Achievement Battery (AAB;Messer, 2014a, 2014b, 2017) were designed to measure aspects ofacademic achievement in children and adults ages 4 to 85 years (seeFigure 2 for an overview of each of the three AAB forms). The AAB wasdesigned to assess basic academic skills including letter and wordreading, spelling, reading comprehension, and mathematical calculation.See Table 1 for a description of each subtest included on the AABStandard Form. The AAB is intended for use by professionals who needa quick and easy-to-administer assessment of the basic areas ofachievement with a focus on reading comprehension.Development of the Reading Comprehension: Passages SubtestAssessment of basic reading and reading comprehension is often apart of academic testing and has historically been included in manycomprehensive measures of achievement, such as the Kaufman Test ofEducational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II; Kaufman & Kaufman,2004); the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition(KTEA-III; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014); the Wechsler Individual Achieve ment Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III; Wechsler, 2009); the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III; Woodcock,McGrew, & Mather, 2007); and the Wide Range Achievement Test 4(WRAT4; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006). In general, most tests ofreading comprehension (especially those that are part of a largeracademic battery) tend to be broad measures that by themselves donot pinpoint specific component abilities or specific comprehensionprocesses (Spear-Swerling, 2006).Several considerations were made when developing the ReadingComprehension: Passages (RC: P) subtest for the AAB. First, it neededto be applicable to a wide age range (ages 5 to 85 years). Next, itneeded to be administered in a relatively short timeframe given that it isone of several other subtests included in a comprehensive academicachievement battery. Finally, (and most importantly), the format andfunction of the subtest needed to be established prior to development.5The AAB was designed toassess basic academicskills including letter andword reading, spelling,reading comprehension,and mathematicalcalculation.
AABAAB ComprehensiveAAB ScreeningWhat it doesDelivers a quick measure of basicacademic skills, including a readingcomprehension subtestProvides a complete assessment of anindividual’s overall performance onseven disparate aspects of achievementOffers a snapshot of an individual’sperformance in four areas ofachievement, including a measureof writingAdministrationand scoring time15-30 minutes to administer;5-10 minutes to score90 minutes to administer;15 minutes to score15-30 minutes to administer;5-10 minutes to scoreWhen to use itTo obtain a quick and accurate measureof an individual’s performance thatincludes a reading comprehensionsubtestTo conduct an in-depth and completeassessment of academic achievementTo perform a fast and reliable screeningof academic achievement that offers anoptional writing subtestSubtests:Subtests:Subtests:Letter/Word ReadingSpellingMathematical CalculationReading Comprehension: PassagesReading Foundational SkillsLetter/Word ReadingReading FluencyReading Comprehension: Words andSentencesReading Comprehension: PassagesListening Comprehension: Words andSentencesListening Comprehension: PassagesOral FluencyOral ExpressionOral ProductionPre-Writing SkillsSpellingWritten ComprehensionMathematical CalculationMathematical ReasoningLetter/Word ReadingSpellingMathematical CalculationWritten Composition otal AABBasic ReadingMathematical CalculationMathematical ReasoningListening ComprehensionExpressive CommunicationWritten ExpressionReading ComprehensionAAB Total ComprehensiveScreening AAB TotalOffers a quick, efficient measure ofacademic achievement that includesa Reading Composite score, whichprovides more data to understandan individual’s reading skills;IQ discrepancy data are availableProvides a complete assessmentof an individual’s academic skills that issuitable for use in eligibility decisionsor intervention planning; IQ discrepancydata are availableDelivers a fundamental evaluation ofacademic skills for those referred forlearning or vocational concerns;IQ discrepancy data are availableAreas assessedHow it helpscliniciansFigure 2. Overview of the three forms of the Academic Achievement Battery (AAB).6
Table 1Description of AAB Standard Form SubtestsSubtestAcronymDescriptionLetter/Word ReadingLWR Letter Reading requires the examinee to identify lowercase and uppercase letters.Word Reading requires the examinee to pronounce words of increasing difficulty.SpellingSP Letter Writing requires the examinee to write lowercase and uppercase letters.Word Writing requires the examinee to correctly spell words of increasing difficulty.Reading Comprehension:RC: PPassagesMathematical CalculationRC: P requires the examinee to read passages of increasing difficulty and draw aline after each sentence.MC Part 1 requires the examinee to provide oral and written responses to mathproblems. Part 2 requires the examinee to complete increasingly difficult mathcalculations in a timed task.Development of this subtest was based on the definition provided by the RAND ReadingStudy Group (Snow, 2002), which indicates that reading comprehension “is the process ofsimultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement withwritten language.” Moreover, it is universally agreed that reading comprehension is a multidimensional construct that can be easily influenced by many external sources; the RAND ReadingStudy Group (Snow, 2002) has identified four factors: the reader (e.g., his or her current skills,knowledge, and preferences), the text being read (e.g., vocabulary, structure, knowledgeassumed, format, and reading level), the reading activity (e.g., reading a Web site versus anovel), and reading over time (e.g., comprehension is highly influenced by cognitivedevelopment).These factors were considered when developing the RC: P subtest: The reader: Because of the wide age range being assessed with the AAB, it wasimportant the paradigm worked at all age and grade levels. The text: Multiple indexes were analyzed during development to determine the gradeappropriateness of the text. The reading activity: Both nonfiction and fiction passages were used to generalizereal-world reading done by both students and adults. Reading over time: Again, because of the large age span of the test, both thepassages used and the format chosen needed to be appropriate for all ages. As anexample, it has been found that working memory has more of an impact on readingcomprehension in younger children (ages 8-11 years) but has less of an impact asindividuals’ age, while knowledge and vocabulary begin to account for more of thevariance as the reader progresses through adolescent years (Siegel, 1994).7
Moreover, as part of the development ofthe AAB, the author examined a range ofmethodologies utilized to assess readingcomprehension (see Morsy et al., 2010;Paris & Stahl, 2005; Spear-Swerling, 2006).In reviewing this literature, the method ofsentence identification was selected as apossible format.points out that it is still important to ensure that the task is not decontextualized, and more specifically, “the syntax of complex sentencesposes challenges that are not accounted for by text-level processessuch as relating sentences or reading beneath the lines to draw inferences” (p. 189).To develop the passages for the AAB RC: P subtest, a list of categories and topics was first created. Next, specific grade and reading levelswere specified as a target for each topic. Editorial and quality assurancestaff then reviewed the passages. Several common reading indexeswere used to determine readability. The Flesch Reading Ease andFlesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Flesch, 1948) were determined for eachpassage using the readability statistics function in Microsoft Word.These readability indexes are based on research by Kincaid, Fishburne,Rogers, and Chissom (1975). The Lexile measure for each passage wasalso determined (MetaMetrics, 2013). For each passage, word count,sentence count, percentage of passive sentences, and mean sentencelength were calculated. Also calculated was mean log word frequency,which is the logarithm of the number of times a word appears in each5 million words of the MetaMetrics research corpus of 571 millionwords. The mean log word frequency is the average of all such valuesfor words that appear in the analyzed text. Thirteen fiction and nonfiction passages were initially developed for this task. Following the firstphase of development (pilot phase), one passage was replaced andone was revised to be more consistent with the other passages in termsof the total number of sentences. The final version of the subtestSentence identification has been usedpreviously to represent reading, includingwork by Guilford (1967, 1988) in hisStructure of Intellect model, as well as Brown,Wiederholt, and Hammill (2008) in theContextual Fluency subtest of the Test ofReading Comprehension-Fourth Edition(TORC-4). The TORC-4 requires examineesto identify individual words within a passage,with each passage printed in uppercaseletters without punctuation or spaces betweenwords. The paradigm is also based on theresearch summarized by Scott (2009), whichillustrates that sentence comprehension(or more specifically, general sentence-levelsyntactic/semantic abi li ties) is a requirementof reading com prehension. Scott (2009)Table 2Item Characteristics and Skills: AAB Reading Comprehension: Passages SubtestItem characteristic/skill)ntPassage 3.33.43.43.03.1Note. Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level derived from J. P. Kincaid, R. P. Fishburne, R. L., Rogers, & B. S.Chissom, (1975), Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading EaseFormula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis.8
consists of 13 passages, with each examineereading three passages. Table 2 providescharacteristics of each of the 13 passages.During the first phase (pilot phase) ofdevelopment, multiple-choice questions (bothliteral and inferential) of varying difficulty werecreated. Each item contained four responseoptions. At the same time, examinees wereinstructed to draw a line at the end of eachsentence. In the second phase (refinementphase) of development, the same questionswere used, but they were modified to be inan open-ended response format and werescored as incorrect (0), partially correct (1),or completely correct (2). Again, the sentenceidentification procedure was used.Throughout the development process, anexpert panel and a bias panel were consulted.The expert panel was composed of curriculumexperts in reading, mathematics, and writingand a school psychologist. All members of theexpert panel had experience in test construction at both the state and national level.The expert panel reviewed items from allAAB subtests, including the RC: P subtest, toensure that content reflected the constructintended, to provide feedback on the face validity of each subtestand the quality of the items, to review and make suggestions for thescoring rubrics, and to ensure tasks were appropriate across the ageor grade range.Pilot and Refinement SamplesThe AAB went through three phases of data collection. The firstphase, pilot testing, was conducted during the winter of 2011 with133 participants ages 4 to 83 years (see Table 3). Examinees wereselected based on demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender,education level, and ethnicity). All cases were checked for accuracyand scored by trained scorers. The refinement version of the AABwas administered to a sample of 280 individuals ages 4 to 70 years(see Table 4) during the spring of 2011. Again, examinees wereselected based on demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender,The expert panel was composedof curriculum experts in reading,mathematics, and writing and aschool psychologist. All membersof the expert panel had experience in test construction at boththe state and national level.Table 3Demographic Characteristicsof the AAB Pilot SampleTable 4Demographic Characteristicsof the AAB Refinement 80Gender (%)MaleFemale40.659.4Gender (%)MaleFemale50.449.6Age (years)MSDRange26.420.84-83Age (years)MSDRange21.118.04-70Race/ethnicity (%)CaucasianAfrican AmericanHispanicOther65.410.520.33.8Race/ethnicity (%)CaucasianAfrican 3Education level a (%) 12 years12 years13-15 years16 years13.223.221.442.1Education level a (%) 12 years12 years13-15 years16 yearsParent education level was used for individuals ages 4to 21 years. Percentages may not sum to 100% due torounding.Parent education level was used for individuals ages 4to 21 years. Percentages may not sum to 100% due torounding.aa9
education level, and ethnicity). All cases were checked foraccuracy and scored by trained research assistants.Table 5Demographic Characteristicsof the AAB Standardization SampleStandardization SampleFrom January 2013 through March 2014, the standardization sample was collected from individuals in 30 states.Two samples were created for standardization (see Table5): an age-based sample, which was based on 1,274individuals between the ages of 4 and 83 years, and agrade-based sample, which was based on 1,447 individuals(737 from fall; 710 from spring) between the ages of 4and 19 years. Both samples are representative of the 2012U.S. Census in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and education level. For individuals ages 4 to 21 years, the consenting parent’s highest level of education was used todetermine education level.SampleA subset of the age-based sample was administeredvarious academic achievement and reading diagnosticmeasures. The demographic characteristics of each ofthese validity samples can be found in Table 6. In addition,a subset of the age-based sample was administered theAAB a second time. The interval between the two testadministrations ranged from 7 to 49 days, with a mediantest–retest interval of 18 days. See Table 7 for the demographic characteristics of the test–retest sample.Participants in both subsamples were lSpringn1,274737710Gender (%)MaleFemale49.051.049.250.849.350.7Age 9Race/ethnicity (%)CaucasianAfrican 959.512.019.78.9Education level a (%) 12 years12 years13-15 years16 4.6Parent education level was used for individuals ages 4 to 21 years. Forindividuals ages 22 years and older, actual obtained education level wasused.aTable 6Demographic Characteristics of the AAB Construct Validity 1834484785Gender 3.5Age .433.58Race/ethnicity (%)CaucasianAfrican 020.827.12.1660.027.76.450.615.323.510.6Education level (%) 121213-1516 .619.119.110.628.223.537.6NNote. WIAT-III Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Ed. (Wechsler, 2009); KTEA-II Kaufman Test of Educa tional Achievement, Second Ed. (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004); WJ-III Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement,Third Ed. (Woodcock, McGraw, & Mather, 2007); WRAT4 Wide Range Achievement Test, Fourth Ed. (Wilkinson &Robertson, 2006); FAR Feifer Assessment of Reading (Feifer & Gerhardstein Nader, 2015).aParent education level is reported for individuals ages 4 to 21 years.10
Table 7Demographic Characteristics ofthe AAB Test–Retest SampleCharacteristicnTotal142Gender (%)MaleFemale47.252.8Age (years)MSDRange30.2518.415-74Race/ethnicity (%)CaucasianAfrican AmericanHispanicOther66.211.317.64.9Education level (%) 12 years12 years13-15 years16 years10.63131.726.8Note. Parent education level is reported for individualsages 4 to 21 years.recruited, so the resulting samples hadapproximately the same proportion of malesand females and racial/ethnic proportionssimilar to the U.S. population. Moreover, awide variety of education levels wereobtained.ProceduresDuring each phase of data collection, datacollectors were selected based on appropriateexperience administering performance-basedassessments and access to needed populations. Data collectors were responsible forobtaining informed consent and administeringthe AAB to examinees and scoring theirresponses. Each data collector was asked toreview the administration and scoring guidelines prior to administering his or her firstprotocol. Each protocol was thoroughlyreviewed for completeness and accuracy bytrained research assistants after submission.Each data collector received feedback, andexaminers who had difficulty with administration or scoring were asked to submit asecond protocol for detailed review beforethey were approved to collect data for thestandardization sample. Throughout standardization, each incoming protocol was checkedfor completeness and accuracy, and it was then entered into SPSS(Version 18) by trained research assistants. The data were cleaned andchecked for missing data before analyses were conducted.MeasuresIn addition to the AAB, participants completed a variety of academicachievement and reading diagnostic measures. The KTEA-II (Kaufman &Kaufman, 2004) is a comprehensive achievement test for individualsages 4 years, 6 months to 25 years. It includes 14 subtests that makeup eight composite measures of achievement: reading, math, writtenlanguage, oral language, sound-symbol, oral fluency, decoding, andreading fluency. The WIAT-III (Wechsler, 2009) is a comprehensiveachievement test for individuals ages 4 to 50 years. It includes 15subtests that make up seven composite measures of achievement: orallanguage, basic reading, total reading, reading comprehension andfluency, written expression, mathematics, and math fluency. The WJ-III(Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2007) is a comprehensive achievement test for individuals ages 2 to 90 years. The core test includes13 subtests that address 13 clusters of achievement: broad reading,oral language, broad math, math calculation skills, broad writtenlanguage, written expression, academic skills, academic fluency,academic applications, brief reading, brief math, brief writing, and briefachievement. The WRAT4 (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006) is a screening achievement test for individuals ages 5 to 94 years. It includes foursubtests (reading, sentence comprehension, spelling, and math computation) and one composite measure of reading. The Feifer Assessmentof Reading (FAR; Feifer & Gerhardstein Nader, 2015) is a comprehensive reading test designed to assess the underlying cognitive andlinguistic processes that support proficient reading skills. It includes 15individual subtests that make up five indexes: the Phonological Index,Fluency Index, Comprehension Index, Mixed Index, and Total Index.ResultsPilot Data AnalysisData were analyzed separately for pilot and refinement phases. First,during the pilot phase, the relationship between the multiple-choiceformat and the sentence-identification format was investigated byexamining the correlation between correct answers on the multiplechoice questions for each passage and the correct number of sentencesidentified for each passage. Correlations were significant across allpassages and ranged from .51-.73 across individual passages (Messer,2014a).Refinement Data AnalysisNext, the relationship between the open-ended responses (scored 0,1, or 2 points) and the sentence-identification technique was investigated by examining the correlations. For each passage, the total numberof correct sentences identified was significantly correlated with the totalpoints awarded for the multiple-choice comprehension items (.54-.87).The range in these correlations is a result of examining each individualpassage across a large age range (ages 5-85 years). Among thequestions, several items were rarely missed, even with the 2-pointresponse option (Messer, 2014a).11
correlate, this does not indicate they are measuring iden ti calfunctions. As a result, additional analyses were conductedwith related constructs such as fluency (Messer, 2014a).Reliability and ValidityIn addition to examining the relationship sentenceidentification had with other approaches for assessingreading comprehension, reliability and validity analysis wereconducted with two larger samples—the age-basedstandardization sample and the grade-based standardization sample. See Table 5 for demographic information forthese samples.In addition to examining the relationship between theRC: P subtest and tests that purport to measure readingcomprehension, the aut
in a missing word or words within a sentence or possibly longer text. The word cloze is derived from closure in Gestalt theory (Taylor, 1953). The cloze procedure . using this with students as a diagnostic tool and believed that test takers tended to focus on the “blank” and used only the immediate context as opposed to attending to the .
Battery Status: To check the battery charge status, turn on the battery power by switching “On” the Battery Power Switch. Please do not let the battery fully die, this severly shortens the life of the battery. Battery Recharge: It will take about 4 hours to reach full charge. To recharge the battery, plug the supplied power supply into the
On-Battery - The Back-UPS is supplying battery power. Low Battery - The Back-UPS is supplying battery power and the battery is near a total discharge state. Replace Battery Detected - The battery needs to be charged, or is at end of life. Low Battery Shutdown - During On Battery operation Back-UPS BX Series 750VA, 950VA, 1200VA, 1600VA, 2200VA
How SES influences students academic achievement has been explained based on various theories. Few theories say that students from low SES homes lack an academic environment at home and which in turn influences their academic achievement. Another scenario argues that school and neighborhood environment influences academic achievement as low SES
Children with an intrinsic motivation orientation had higher reading and math scores and higer overall achievement scores compared to their extrinsic counterparts (Boggiano et-al 1992). There is a significant correlation between academic achievement and motivation (Sikwari 2014) and motivation has impact on academic
The Effect of Reading Habits on Academic Achievement Literature posits that academic achievement is based on the students' development of reading habits (Annamalai & Muniandy, 2013). A study conducted by Horbec's (2012) showed a strong relationship between reading habits and academic achievement. The reading habits
When the battery weakens, the red indicator light will blink at a constant rate when the user’s hands are within the sensor range. the battery must be replaced within two weeks. To replace the battery on battery option: 1. carefully open the battery’s box. Remove the old battery. 2. Replace the used battery with a new 9V battery (Lithium .
Learning About the Reader’s Batteries 2-34 Lithium Backup Battery 2-34 NiCad Battery Pack 2-35 Installing the Battery Pack 2-35 Removing the Battery Pack 2-36 Checking the Power Remaining in the NiCad Battery Pack 2-38 Charging the Battery Pack 2-39 Disposing of the NiCad Battery Pack 2-39 Recognizing a Low or Discharged Battery 2-40
RM 6000 Series RMD 6000 Series Battery Battery Removal Both Sides 45 Type Lead Acid 46 Min Weight/Max Amp-hrs C Battery Compartment- Up to 321" lb/Ah 2000 / 930 D Battery Compartment- Up to 341" lb/Ah 2280 / 1085 E Battery Compartment - 400" lb/Ah 2600 / 1240 Max Battery Size L x W x H C Battery Compartment in 38.38 x 16.25 x 31
