Reference no: EM133464066

Discussion Post

The measure of central tendency that is widely regarded as the most optimal and commonly utilized is the mean. Nonetheless, there exist certain circumstances where alternative measures of central tendency are favored. According to Manikandan S. (2011),In instances where data is derived from distributions that are skewed, the median is a more suitable measure of central tendency than the mean. This is because the median is not susceptible to the influence of exceptionally large values and is less impacted by outliers.

The range of scores is denoted by the minimum score of 18 and the maximum score of 99, with the former being significantly low and the latter being comparatively high. The quartiles offer insights into the score distribution within the specified range. The value of the first quartile (Q1) being 67.75 signifies that a quarter of the scores fall below this point, whereas the third quartile (Q3) being 87 indicates that three-quarters of the scores are below this value. The statistical measure of central tendency known as the median, which has a value of 80.5 in this particular context, denotes the point at which 50% of the scores fall below and 50% of the scores exceed.

The analysis of descriptive statistics indicates a considerable variation in scores among the trainees, with a notable disparity between high and low performers. The observed score distribution exhibits a leftward skewness, indicating a greater concentration of scores below the median as opposed to above it.

Reference

Manikandan S. (2011). Measures of central tendency: Median and mode. Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics, 2(3), 214-215.

Task

Victor's discussion is good. One thing we might want to consider in our analysis is how are assessing performance. What are some concerns we might have about the assessment instrument and how might we test and alleviate these concerns?