Introducing the new Rumble’s Quest reporting

The enhanced framework provides a clearer understanding of specific wellbeing aspects. For example, while Self-Regulation was previously treated as a single dimension, the updated system reports Behavioural and Emotional aspects as separate domains.

Similarly, the former Social Confidence dimension has been replaced by two clearly defined domains: Positive Identity, focusing on how children see themselves, and Social Wellbeing, focusing on the quality of their peer relationships. This allows for a more nuanced presentation of personal and interpersonal confidence.

If you are accustomed to the old system, the group and child reports may look slightly different at first. However, this refined framework provides a clearer picture that will make it easier to act on your data.

Previously, scores were expressed as percentiles based on a continuously accumulating dataset. While this provided a common benchmark—with the median always at the 50th percentile—it tended to mask natural variations between different wellbeing indicators and implied that all aspects of wellbeing are equal.

To address this, domain scores are now calculated by rescaling raw scores. This statistical conversion maintains the 0 to 100 scale but ensures that population median values are not forced into equivalence across domains. Consequently, you will notice that the national comparison benchmark for each domain now stands independently. These updated benchmarks more accurately reflect how wellbeing varies across a nationally representative sample of Australian children.

The introduction of enhanced processes for establishing population parameters ensures that the composition of the new norming sample now more closely reflects the characteristics of the overall population at the time you run the test.

The new reporting system also provides more ways for you to reference your results against population-level data. For instance, in addition to using national benchmarks, schools can compare their group wellbeing profile to that of schools with similar socio-demographic characteristics.

In the new reports, the distribution of wellbeing within your group is more meaningfully conveyed through a continuum consisting of three bands:

• Struggling: Represents the percentage of children who provided consistent low-value responses.
• Coping: Captures the percentage of the group who provided consistent mid-value responses.
• Strong: Shows the percentage of children whose scores indicate consistent selection of high-value responses to questions within the domain.

In the past, four specific assets provided an item-level breakdown of wellbeing; however, these did not precisely align with the four dimensions in the Group Summary. This inconsistency may have constrained the efficient development of wellbeing support strategies.

The updated system introduces a more coherent structure that breaks each Domain into a subset of contributing Assets. By unpacking Domains into Assets and then into an analysis of specific items, this new approach provides a clearer path for delivering tailored support. 

As a bonus, the new Item Analysis now allows you to compare the spread of your group’s responses for each item against the overall population.

The process for communicating Executive Function results remains unchanged; however, a dedicated feature is now available for you to present these results as a free-standing report.