Each forced-choice question includes three statements (e.g., "I work hard" might be one), and no two statements within the same question measure the same Snapshot skill. For analysis, the responses are coded as either 1, 2, or 3 (from most like me to least like me). Since there are three possible comparisons to make in each forced-choice question, there are three new variables that describe the ranking of each statement, relative to another in the question (e.g., statement 1 is ranked as more like me than statement 2). A single statement is involved in two comparisons, which means two of these new variables will capture information about each skill. Once this is complete, each Snapshot skill is defined using the variables that inform it, and we utilize additional parameters to ensure the model is stable. These data are analyzed using a set of statistical models based on L. L. Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment.
Situational Judgment Questions
Admission staff and teachers from across the country rated the situational judgment items in the same manner as the students (i.e., rate the appropriateness of each possible response to the scenario presented). Student response analysis on the situational judgment questions reflects the extent of alignment with the median of those ratings. In other words, the situational judgment results describe how well a student is able to gauge the appropriateness of particular behaviors, with appropriateness set by the experts (who are, in this case, admission staff and teachers).
Please note that it is possible for a child to be in one category for all character skills.