Download Understanding Aptitude Tests: Differences, Uses, and Misuses and more Summaries Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 320 912 TM 014 379
AUTHOR Macklem, Gayle L. TITLE Attitude: What It If:, How To Use It, and How To Affect It. PUB DATE 89 NOTE 27p. PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2^ Plus^ Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Ability; Tests; Educational^ Achievement Assessment;^ Tests;^ *Aptitude; Elementary^ Aptitude Secondary Education; *Intelligence Tests; Scores; Testing Problems; *Test Use ABSTRACT The concept of aptitude is reviewed, and the uses and misusesgeneral ofability aptitude plus tests certain are moreconsidered. specialized Many abilitiesaptitude teststhat aremeasure important for success in particular educational programs. Aptitude tests can be subdivided into: (1) group-administered aptitude tests, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test; (2) multifactor aptitude tests, exemplified by the Differential Aptitude Test; (3) specific aptitude tests; and (4) individually administered aptitude tests (intelligence tests). administration; Aptitcode and tests guidance. have three Several major potential uses: instructional misuses of aptitude purpc3es; tests can occur, particularly if results are interpreted as fixed or immutable. In consider: g the effects of schooling on results of ability measures, it is important to consider the many reasons for change in individual test scores. While it may not be possible to allowraise aintelligence child to make^ quotients the most^ permanently, of natural ability.habits^ can Raising^ be^ taught^ that achievement test scores and teaching test-taking skills are generally acceptable objectives. Improvement of academic aptitude may be possible through direct training in learning strategies and the developmentplanning, monitoring, of executive and learning evaluating skills, one's i.e., own thinking.skills involved A 35-item in list of references is included. (Si.D)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
OfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovementUIIDEPARTMENTOFEDUCATION EDUCATIONALRESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER(ERIC, Minis receivedfromthepersonororgenizatioi, documenthasbeenreproduceda rMinorchangeshavebeenmadetoimprove^ originatingit reproductIOnWW1, PointsofvtewOfopinionsstatedinthisdocu mintdonotnecessardyrepresentoffociai OEMPosifionorpolicy
PERMISSIONTOREPRODUCETHISMATERIALHASBEENGRANTEDBY
64)14.6. L. /1/?clieLEN
TOTHEEDUCATIONALRESOURCESINFORMATIONCENTER(ERIC)...
APTITUDE: WHAT IT IS, HOW TO USE IT,
AND HOW TO AFFECT IT
Gayle L. Macklem, M.A., NCSP Manchester School System Manchester, MA. 01944
BESTCOPYAMIABLE
- Aptitude^ tests^ are^ more^ valid^ measures^ of^ future^ performance^ than achievement tests (Sattler, J.M., 1988).
- Aptitude^ restsstress^ the^ ability^ to^ apply^ information^ in^ new^ and different ways while achievement tests are designed to measure mastery of facts (Sattler, J.M., 1988). Aptitude tests have clear advantages if one is interested in pre- dicting general academic performance and if one is interested in what a child is bringing to a task irrespective of the specific curriculum that the child has experienced. (^) The difference between aptitude and achievement tests is sometimes a matter of degree e3d same aptitude and . achievement tests look a lot alike (Mehrens, W.K. and LaIrnann, I.J., 1987).
Aptitude tests take less time to administer and are more efficient. They are particularly useful when compared with achievement measures to show a difference between expected achievement and actual achievement. Such a comparison can be used as one measure of curricular or school effectiveness given proper precautions (iahrens, W. A., n.d.; Narens, W.A. and Lehmann, I.J., 1987). Ability, intelligence and aptitude are constructs that are more similar to each other than they are to achievement. (^) Intelligence tests are con- sidered the more global measures, aptitude themore specific measures (Mehrens, W. A. and Lehmann, I.J., 1989) Yet intelligence tests,cognitive ability tests and scholastic aptitude tests all measure ageneral ability factor (Jensen, A., 1981). (^) Test publishers currently lean e .y from the terms intelligence and aptitude and prefer the term ability or school learning ability. General ability testsmeasure overall average performance across a broad range of mental capabilities. These tests are called mental tests,
4
intelligence tests or IQ tests. They^ have^ broader^ predictive^ validity^ than any other type of psychological measurement. We can compare
.intelligence tefts.'to aptitude tests which are more
specialized. Many aptitude tests measure general plus^ certain^ more specialized abilitites that are important for success in a particular edu- cational program. Scholastic aptitude tests are primarily interested in general reasoning ability and specific Verbal and numerical abilities because these are the most predictive of scholastic performance (Jensen, A. 1981). Jerome Sattler views intelligence as a "broad concept that reflects an individual's information processing capabilities and possession of useful knowledge" (Sattler, J.M., 1988, pg. 78).. Scores on an intelligence test are an important index of ability but should not be considered to thoroughly measure intelligence or measure all of an individual's intelligence. ...for many there is a 'mystique' surrounding the IQ: the ntisconcpetions are frequently so deeply ingrained that it might even require a canplete college course pg.on^ mental237).^ testing^ to^ dispel^ than^ (Jensen,^ A.,^ 1981, Definitions of intelligence, and there are many of them, emphasize adjust- ment or adaptation to the environment, the ability to learn or the ability to use abstract symbols or concepts. Current theories of intelligence posit a general factor at one level, several broad classes of abilities at the next level and primary factors at a third level (Sattler, J.M., 1988).
...intelligence can be seen as the most canplex scientific issue of all time...There simple exists no more complex problem in science today (Reynolds, C.R., 1987, pg. 309).
5
Aptitude tests can be subdivided into four categories and students might have experience with all four. (^) Those categories includegroup administered aptitude tests, multifactor aptitude tests, specific aptitude tests and individually administered aptitudetests.
The SAT is a good example of a group administered ability test. It is probably the best known and most widely used test. It is well designed. A question goes through more than a hundred steps before it is acceuted and may take as long as two years before it is seen on a test (Feder, B., 1979). The SAT-Verbal aptitude test consists of reading can - prehension, antonyms, verbal analogies, and sentence completion. The SAT- Mathematical aptitude test measures numerical ability and quantitative reasoning. An individual score should be thought of as the score plus or minus 32 points which is the standard error of measurement. The SAT-V is generally more predictive of overall college grades than the SAT-M. Predictive accuracy is improved by combining SAT-V and SAT-M with high school grades (Jensen, A., 1981).
Criticism of this type of aptitude test may relate to the^ fact that apticrz1e tests are used to parcel out the limited^ resources^ of society such as admission to select colleges and the tests are seen as closing doors to opportunity for success (Settler,^ J.14.,^ 1988). Studies show that actually the S.A.T. validly and reliably measures what it intended to measure.
For the last 63 years, the B.A.T. has functioned as a guarantor of fairness to students of every background in college admissions. It has been a messenger of clear national standards of academic achievement that help to keep (Steward, high schoolD.M., 1989). grades from "inflating" beyond reason
7
The Differential Aptitude Teat is a good example ofa Multi- Factor Ability Test. The DAT has eight subtests: Verbal Reasoning (VR), Numerical Ability (NA). Abstract Reasoning (AR), Clerical Speed and Accuracy (CSA), Mechanical Reasonin7 (MR), Space PelatL.ons (SR), Spelling (Sp) and Language Usage (LU). The last two subtests are really achievement tests because they are so closely tied to the curriculum. (^) The DAT is considered a multifactor Aptitude Test and fits under the category of multiple aptitudes. In practice, the differential validity of the DAT inpre- dicting course grades is not any better than predicting gradesfrom the combined VR and NA score which isa measure of general scholastic aptitude. Counselors like the DAT, however, especially when it is cambired with a Career Planning Report. In general, however, the multifactor aptitude tests are not very good for differential pre- diction 04ehrens, W.A. and Lehmann, I. J., 19981 Individual aptitUde tests ara al_o called intelligence tests, An individually administered ability test or IQ Last allows the examiner to observe a student (^) to problem solving,his/herreaction to stress and his/nergeneral test taking patterns. The examinercan control the student's behavior and observe a child closelyallowing more reliable:measurement and a better understanding of the factors underlyingthe behavior observed (lehrens, W.A. and Lehmann, I J., 1987). (^) No other items of information that we can obtain about a child will predictoverall learning ability and academic achievement better thanrecently obtained scores on an individually administered aptitudeor Ability test (Jensen, A., 1981). Misconceptions about the abilitytests we consider intelligence tests abound. (^) A few statements can be made thatmay be helpful in disspelling sane of those misconceptions.
- (^) 'Intelligence (^) tests -never measure innate intelligence exclusively. Scores on such tests are based on the student's interaction with the environment as well. (^8)
8..
- (^) They provide a profile of strengths and weaknesses.
- (^) They measure a child's ability to canpete inour society In ways that have econaric and social consequences.
- (^) They assess individual, cultural and biological differences among individuals.
- (^) They have identified unsuspected talents insome children thereby improving their educational opportunities and are valuable tools in working with handicapped children (^) (Settler, J.M., 1988). Group. ability tests are administered most often as part of a group achievement test battery. Their advantage lies in quick administrationto large numbers of students at reasonable costs. One of the values of group ability tests is to identify those childrenwho obtain extreme scores so that they may be selected out forfurther attention. (^) They are also of value in making program decisions, curricula decisions and for making instructional groupings although the latter shouldconstitute a highly flexible use of such data. Sane data shows thatgroup administered ability tests predict achievement as -Jell as individually administered tests (Wright, D. and Piersel, W.C., 1987). (^) Others are cautious in their discussions ofthe uses of group administered tests of intelligence (Anastasi, A., 1982),
How Can We Use Aptitude Test Results? In general, aptitude tests have three major uses: instructional, administrative and guidance. Aptitude tests are used for instructional purposes when they are used to adapt students to courses, or courses to students, or curriculum to studentgroupings, or to design assignments for students who differ widely inability in the same class. (^) Aptitude test scores can help teachers form realisdcexpectations of students. Knowing something about the ability levelof students in a given class can help a teacher identify which students are not learning as much as could be pre- dicted on the basis of ability scores. If a whole class were nerforming less
10
well than would be predicted from aptitude test scores than curriculum, objectives, effective teaching methods, or student characteristics might be investigated (Barlow, D.L., 1985; Mehrens, W.A. and Lehmann, I.J.,1987). An interesting study was reported in 1987 in which effective teacher behavior was related to student ability. It was found that a teacher must behave differently to be effective with high-ability learners than to be effective with low ability learners. Also it was found that a teacher must behave differently to be effective with learners at ether ability level when teaching arithmetic thallI0hen teaching reading. What con- stitutes" effective teaching" may vary depending on content and student ability (Cara, A.V. and Medley, Dail., 1987). Some theorists-feel that achievement is related.to time en task. Aptitude impacts on this research as well. (^) The amount of time a child should spend in learning depends on how much time is needed to reach the intended goal, the quality of instruction and the child's ability to understand that instruction. High aptitude children may not learnmore with additional time on task as it isn't needed. (^) Students do not have a uniform learning rate (Gettinger, M., 1989). Studies which attempt to match instruction to learner characteristics are called 'aptitude times treatment interactions'. (^) High and low aptitude students have been found to learn better in small group conditions than in large group conditions. Medium ability students do slightly better inlarge group conditions (Wagner, R.K. and Sternberg, R.j., 1984). Other studies have found sex differences in motivational patterns and behavioramong high ability but not law ability students, especially in mathematics (Dweck, C.W., 1986). Aptitude test scores are useful in educational, personal and vocational guidance. In vocational guidance,the educational requirements ofsome jobs require considerable general ability. In vocational and personal guidance,
11
In addition to all of these ways in whichabii!ty^ tests^ are^ used, there is considerable potential for use of ability testdata^ for^ research and employment. Using^ modern^ statistical^ tools^ researchers^ havefound that ability tests do quite consistently predict subsequentjob^ and^ job training performance Nehrens, W.A. and Lehmann, I.J., 1987)-
Misuses of Aptitude Test Data A student will take a number of aptitude tests before graduating fran
public school systems. Both^ the^ public^ and^ educators,as^ well^ as^ test
constructors, have been concerned about the potential misuses of aptifuda tests.
- Aptitude^ test^ scores^ should^ not^ be^ used^ to^ help^ teachers^ develop fatalistic expectations in regard to learning abilities cf students.
- Aptitude tests Can be used like any other kind of data to label students. A label should never be used as an explanation, a label is a d-iscriotion.
- Aptitude^ test^ SCCTIS^ need^ to^ be^ thoroughly^ explained^ to^ children^ and parents to help develop accurate self concepts without ContriLutinq to bad feelings or inaccurately high expectations.
- (^) Aptitude test scores should never be interpreted as immutable, pen thent or a total picture.
- Aptitude test scores should not be used to lock-step a child into a curriculum (Melmens,^ W.A.^ and^ Lehmann,^ I.J.,^ 1987).
11
Standard ability tests can establish students' current levels of performance but do not tell us haw they got there! Students who have not had the opportunity to acquire skills and knowledge maJ be misjudged or misclassified.
The classifications that result, already presumed to reflect general intellectual ability, are further regarded as fixed and unlikely to change. These expectations free teachers and schools from sane of the responsibility for effective remediation ((.7znpioae, j.C., 1989, pg. 154). IN11PIIM.IMP I1......0.11.11.1.10..111111111=11.
There are other misuses of test results. (^) If tests are used to evaluate instruction, the stakes become too high and the testing can became the curriculum (Madaus, George, 1989). Sane educators attempt to interpret test scores when they have not had a measurement course and lack training in this area. Many measurement experts seen to feel that the tests are often blamed for misuse rather than blaming the people or policies that used the information or misused it. What Are the Affects of Schooling on Ability? In order to address the question of the effects of schooling on ability, we need to briefly touch the great nature-nurture debate. We need to look first at individually and group administered ability tests or IQ tests and review the influence of lcredity and environmental influenceson those scores. It is important to understand that children do not inherit an IQ! (^) They inherit a collection of genes that set the upper and lower limits of their ability but the environment determines where in this range the final IQ will fall. (^) There it considerable debate about how wide this range is. Although heredity may set the limits of the range, it is the environment that promotes CT restricts intellectual develcment. An estimate of the heritability of a
14
group-administered ability tests" but high school and college "have smaller effects" (^) (Jensen, A.R., 1981).
Do Ability Scores Ever Change? If we are talking about individual children, the question ofwhether or not ability score: :Znaige must be answered with 'it depends'. (^) The tested intelligence of a child under fouryears of age is unstable. (^) As children get older, the stability of test scores increase quickly. The scores of most children over age five tend to remain in a similar position relative to their age group. The I.O. of any given childmay change dramatically, however. Test scores can and do fluctuate for indiviidual children and this is why pexmanc.nt decisions, labeling, or program decisions should not be made on the basis of a singletest score (^) (iiihreno, W.A. and Lehmann, I.J., 1987; Settler, J.M., 1988). 41.01WILOWIIII=MM If I.Q.'s and achievement scores are obtained at each grade level and averaged over three to fiveyears, the correlation between them approaches .90, or nearly the reliability of the test (Jensen, A., 1981,pg. 29-30). In the case of group ability or aptitude tests, verbal group test scores are more stable than non-verbal scores, belowage 10 stability in group test scores (^) is less than for individually administeredtest scores, but after grade 7, there is hardly any difference between stability of individual and group verbal ability tests Nehreno, W.A. and Lehmann, I. (^) , 1987). Changes in individual test scoresoccur for a number of reasons. Physical and emotional factors can effect testscores. Changes in motivation and in cognitive stimulation can occuras well. (^) These are environmental factors that can effect I.Q. (^) constancy. Sane children have a growth pattern that i- smooth and continuous, others have a growth pattern that consists of spurts
16
and pauses. Thiscould cause changes in tested I.Q.'s which would be related to genetically based developmental trends (Sattler, J.M., 1988). (^) Also it is important to realize that a genetic or environmental influencemay operate at one point in time and not at another (1171Sue, M. 1989). Personality may affect group ability tests as well. (^) One hypothesis for the differential scoring of ren and women on tha Scholastic AptitudeTest (moren scare 61 points lower than men) is that men are more likely to take risks and guess at answers. (^) Other hypotheses include larger numbers of women taking the tests and more women taking the test from lower income families who have had lower quality education (Carnegie, Mellon, September, 1988). Although a close relationship exists between high ability andsuccess at school, keep in mind that other factors alsO play a part suchas per- sistence, hard work, personality (introverts tend to do better), emotional stability and attentional skills. The relationship between high ability and achievement is greatest for the most academic subjects (Latin) and lower to much lower for sewing, cooking and gymnastics (Eysenck, H.J. and Kamin,Leon, 1981).
Can Ability be Raised? There has been and there remains considerable interest.in raising ability scores. Studies suggest that special environmental stimulation can temporarily raise children's scores sometimes substantially on certain ability tests. However, we have no evidence at this time that appreciable and lasting changes can be made in the general ability factor that the test measures and is the basis for the I.Q.'s correlation with scholastic achievement (Jensen, A-, 1981). There is also accumulating evidence that the low intellectual skills and thinking capacity of mildly mentally retardedstudents cannot be
17
INITIALLY THIS DATA MY SEEN DISCOURAGING. HOWEVER, it should be pointed out that the SAT is designed to measure developed scholastic skills and knowledge acquired throughout a student's entire school career. The items on the SAT are content-specific.Performance on these specific types of items is undoubtedly trainable so it is conceivable thata coaching program can be developed that would be successful. (^) Many items require content-specific knowledge especially on the SAT-M. (^) SO IN ESSENCE RAISING YOUR APTITUDE TEST SCORES MEANS RAISING YOUR ACHIEVEMENT SCORES (^) (Feder, B., 1979)! Reading is probablythe single most important skill that is testedon group ability, tests such as the CTP ability tests of the ERB. (^) Poor 'readers' read too quickly; they miss important connecting words, expressions and punctuation; they read their own opinions and views into what the author has stated; they jump to conclusions, and they don't go back and check impressions (Feder, B., 1979). (^) RAISING APTITUDE TEST SCORES MEANS IMPROVING READING COMPREHENSION! Same experts feel that short -team cranidng will not affect aptitudetest scores but LOAD TERM INSTRUCTION IN BROAD COGNITIVE SKILLS MIGHT WELL IMPROVE ONE'S ABILITY (iehreno, W.A. and Lehmann, 1987). Finally, TEST TAKING SKILLS or test-taking orientationcan remove same of the obstacles that might cause the student to inaccurately represent his or her performance (Mehrens, W. A. and Lehmann, I.J., 1987).' Raising achievement test scores and teaching test taking skills are objectives that we may readily accept in fact have alreadyaccepted. Improving reading canprehension is an objective of all elementary teachers but too often is left to a few departments at the secondary level. Instruction in cognitive skills is an objective that may have to be more broadly embraced by all teaching staff in orderto make it effective.
Mehrers and Lehmann (1987) maintain that "Each participant in the educational process should be held responsible only for those educational outcomes that he or she can affect." It would seem that improving achievement, improving reading comprehension, teaching test taking skills and instructing in broad cognitive skills are educational objectives for which every teacher at every level, in every content area can assume responsibility. For sane individual students a camprehensive unified effort to meet objectives, such as those stated above, would make significant differences in aptitude test scores. But even if the gains were small, if they were uniform and across the board for all of our students and if they resulted in a permanent change in general ability, the consequences could be impressive! Jensen (1981) has pointed'out that a 5 point gain in I.Q. for ell students, for example, would double the percentage of students with I. Q's mer130 (very superior) and would reduce by half the percentage of students with I.Q.s below 70 (borderline). We already know a great deal about improving achievement and teaching study skills. There is new data in the areas of teaching reading comprehension that all teachers need to understand. Reading camprehensionis usually taught by placing students in reading groups and asking them questions about what they have read out loud, or by having students read a text and then read and answer questions about the text. Current thinking about teaching reading c.nnprehension focuses on teaching the process of comprehension. Researchers have identified activities that foster reading canprehension as well as the reader's monitoring of that comprehension. (^) They include summarizing, self- directed questioning, clarifying and predicting (Belmont, J.M., 1989).
20
