Comparative Prediction of Success and Satisfaction in College Major Fields

Abstract

This bulletin completes the report of the Comparative Prediction Study ‐ College Level. It is to be regarded as a second part of RB‐59‐10, which described the background and method of the study, the aptitude tests, interest scales and personality scales, the administration to college freshman, the intercorrelations that were computed, and the need for averaging validity coefficients. The results of the testing are presented here as if the study had been done at the “average college.” Even this requires rather voluminous tables. The analysis shows the multiple validities that can be obtained from the battery and evaluates the battery's capability for differential and comparative prediction by computing the intercorrelations among predicted criteria and the validity of the predicted differences between criteria. An explanation and a demonstration is made of statistical corrections for the length of the tests, restriction of range in the major‐field groups, and “shrinkage” expected when the multiple validities are tried out on new groups. The battery is evaluated according to specifications laid down previously. A summary of the evaluation is as follows: The general level of prediction of major‐field grades is good (over .62) for some fields, but lower than this for too many others. Both the aptitude tests and interest scales contribute to the general validity; the personality scales were found to be much less useful. Validity for freshman grades is somewhat poorer; validity for satisfaction is low and limited entirely to the interest scales. Differential prediction of major‐field grades is good, mainly because of the presence of the interest scales.

Computer‐assisted Guidance: Concepts and Practices

“…Just as Paterson and Darley (1936) and Paterson and others (1941) C--as reviews and studies by Super (n.d.), Tiedeman (1958), Cronbacl (1956, Thorndike and Hagen (1959), French (1961French ( , 1962, and others demonstrated. (A study by Katz & Norris, 1972, discusses some of tl statistical and theo~tical problems in establishing differential v.…”