Grades of men and women in lst-year mathematics courses were obtained from a sample of 9 universities. In addition, placement test scores were available from 4 of the institutions. This information was combined with Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores and self-reported information on mathematics courses taken in high school, grades in those courses, and overall high school grade point average. College courses were divided into three categories (algebra, precalculus, and calculus). Within a given college mathematics course, the average grades of women were about equal to or slightly higher than men's average grades, but men's average scores on the mathematical scale of the SAT were above women's average scores by a third of a standard deviation or more.Several recent meta-analyses of gender differences in mathematical ability suggest that simple generalizations about the superiority of either gender are impossible (Feingold, 1988;Friedman, 1989;Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). The size and even the direction of gender differences depend on a number of factors. The comprehensive review by Hyde et al. (1990) indicated that age, type of task (e.g., computation or problem solving), and selectivity of the sample all appear to be important determiners of gender differences. On computational tasks, female students seem to be slightly superior before high school, with little or no gender difference in high school. On problem-solving tasks, moderate-sized differences favoring male students start to appear in high school. These differences favoring male students in problem solving are larger in more select samples; as Hyde (1981) notes, relatively large differences may be expected in the tails of distributions that differ only slightly when the entire distribution is considered.Because college admissions tests focus (a) on older students (those enrolled in the later years of high school), (b) on problem-solving skills, and (c) on a relatively select sample, superior performance by boys would be expected from the trends summarized above. However, the degree of male advantage on these tests, especially on the Mathematics subscale (M) of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) has caused some reviewers to characterize the gender difference as "anomalous" (Linn & Hyde, 1989) or "discrepant" (Hyde etal., 1990). On the Scholastic Aptitude Test-Mathematics subscale (SAT-M), which ranges from 200 to 800 points, the gender difference is about 46 points, or 0.39 d (in which d represents the difference between the two means divided by the pooled standard deviation; College Board, 1989). On the American College Testing Program (ACT) Mathematics Usage scale, This research was funded in part by the College Board. The conclusions and opinions expressed are those of Brent Bridgeman and Cathy Wendler.

No abstract

Children (N =182) with known or suspected sensory integrative dYSfunction and whoranged in agefrom 4 years, omonths, to 9 years, 11 months, were assessed using tests and clinical observations to examine developmental dyspraxia. Correlations and factor analyses indicated strongassociations between praxis, tactilesensory processing, visualperception, and repeating ofsentences. The ma-

This project used data from test administration timing records, the College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) history file, and a survey questionnaire to investigate two issues: comparable testing time and eligibility for special test accommodations for SAT examinees with disabilities. Comparable testing time for disabled examinees was found to be between 1½ and 2 times that for nondisabled examinees. Time limits in that range would assure that approximately equal percentages of disabled and nondisabled students would complete each section of the SAT The exception was blind students using braille or cassette versions of the test, who required between double and triple time. Eligibility for special test accommodations is tied to severity of disability and documentation of disability. Some levels of disability could be distinguished for students with sensory disabilities, based on self‐reports and confirmed by the presence or absence of individualized education programs (IEPs). For example, IEPs were reported for 80 percent of totally blind candidates, 50 percent of legally blind candidates, and only 28 percent of visually impaired examinees who were not considered legally blind. Similarly, 90 percent of hearing‐impaired students using American Sign Language (ASL) reported having IEPs, compared to 76 percent of those using total communication (English and sign) and 42 percent of those for whom English was the preferred communication mode. Severity of disability could not be defined for physically disabled or learning‐disabled examinees, except on the basis of IEPs. However, it was difficult to isolate the need for test accommodations based on school practices (e.g., IEPs or special schools or classes), since examinees eligible for special test administrations were often tested under standard conditions. Alternatives to the current eligibility policy are discussed, including a change to school‐based criteria and the use of individualized testing programs. A change to empirically derived testing times is also discussed.

Because the Scholastic Aptitude Test Mathematical Score (SAT‐M) is a measure of general mathematical aptitude that is not closely linked to the specific skills that are prerequisites for a particular course or series of courses, it should not be the only information considered in making placement decisions. Nevertheless, if it can be shown that the SAT‐M score is a reasonably good predictor of success in particular mathematics courses, then it may have a role to play as one of the pieces of information to be considered. The question of the predictive validity of SAT‐M performance was addressed by collecting grades in freshman mathematics courses from 10 colleges. Compared to tests that were specifically designed for placement purposes, the SAT‐M score was a relatively poor predictor of grades in most courses. Even after correcting for the considerable range restriction that may occur when within‐course scores are analyzed, coefficients were typically only in the mid‐.30s (compared to corrected coefficients for a local placement test that ranged from the high .40s to the low .60s). Nevertheless, the SAT‐M score significantly improved predictions from high school grade‐point average alone, especially for calculus courses. In courses at all levels, grades of males and females were very similar, but the SAT‐M scores of males were significantly above the scores of females. Gender differences for predicting grades in particular mathematics courses generally could be eliminated or greatly reduced by considering high school GPA together with SAT‐M scores. Three subscores (Algebra, Insight, and Routine) were generated from the November 1985 SAT‐M test but they had no differential utility in prediction. No practically significant trait‐treatment interactions were demonstrated. For algebra versus precalculus course placement decisions, a weighted composite of SAT‐M score and self‐reported high school grades and courses taken correctly predicted 64 percent to 71 percent of the actual placements. For precalculus versus calculus decisions, about 80 percent of the actual placements could be predicted.