Correcting Differences in Answer Sheets for the 1980 Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Reference Population

Ree, Malcolm James; Wegner, Toni G.

doi:10.1207/s15327876mp0203_3

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2 shows the ASVAB subtests and composites and their reliabilities, as computed using measures of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1952;Wherry & Gaylord, 1943) for the power tests or test-retest method for the two speeded subtests and the composites (Palmer, Hartke, Ree, Welsh, & Valentine, 1988). All test scores investigated were in the metric of the normative reference standard scores, which are based on a nationally representative sample of youth collected in 1980 (Maier & Sims, 1986;Ree & Wegner, 1990). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subtest and Composite Validity of ASVAB Forms 11, 12, and 13 for Technical Training Courses

Ree¹,

Earles²

1992

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subtest and Composite Validity of ASVAB Forms 11, 12, and 13 for Technical Training Courses

Ree¹,

Earles²

1992

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The matrix of correlations of ASVAB and BAT tests was corrected-for-range-restriction by the method of Lawley (1943) to the normative sample (Maier & Sims, 1986;Ree & Wegner, 1990).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The correlation of cognitive and psychomotor tests

Ree¹,

Carretta²

1992

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any purpose other than in connection with a definitely Government-related procurement, the United States Government incurs no responsibility or any obligation whatsoever. The fact that the Government may have formulated or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be regarded by implication, or otherwise in any manner construed, as licensing the holder, or any other person or corporation; or as conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.The Office of Public Affairs has reviewed this paper, and it is releasable to the National Technical Information Service, where it will be available to the general public, including foreign nationals. This paper has been reviewed and is approved for publication. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. MALCOLM JAMES ABSTRACT (Ma~xmum 200 words)A paper-and-pencil multiple-aptitude test battery and a computer-based psychomotor test battery were administered to a sample of 354 Air Force recruits. The tests of the multiple-aptitude battery were used to estimate psychometric g and to predict the psychomotor tests. The multiple correlation of the multiple-aptitude tests and each psychomotor test as a criterion was .50, corrected for range restriction.The average correlation of the psychomotor tests and psychometric g, corrected for range restriction and unreliability, was .73. The multiple-aptitude tests and the psychomotor tests were correlated and subjected to a principal components analysis. The average g saturations of the psychomotor and multiple-aptitude tests were .76 and .87, respectively.Confirmatory factor analyses disclosed hierarchical general cognitive and general psychomotor factors, two lower order multiple-aptitude test factors and three lower order psychomotor test factors. iii PREFACE This research and development was accomplished under work unit 77191845 which is dedicated to the study of selection and classification of Air Force Pilots. The authors thank Laurie C. Walters, Melody Darby, and Rick Siem for help in planning the data collection and in statistical analyses. We thank James Earles and Major David Perry for reading drafts and 1Lt Laura Kreitler for producing the figure of the structural model.Comments from Joseph Weeks on the correction for range restriction which helped clarify our thinking were appreciated. Professor Charles Lance, University of Georgia, is thanked for his helpful comments on statistical tests appropriate for the structural models. A special debt of gratitude is owed William C. Tirre for his generosity of time in developing the structural model. A paper-and-pencil multiple-aptitude test battery and a computer based psychomotor test battery were administered to a sample of 354 Air Force recruits. The tests of the multiple-aptitude battery were used to estimate psychometric g and to predict the psychomotor tests. Cognitive multiple-aptitu...

show abstract

“…The differences in the scores between the NLSY participants and potential recruits were attributed to differences in the shape of answer sheets (the NLSY participants filled a "bubble sheet" while potential recruits filled "slim rectangles") and its layout (the answer sheet used by the military corresponded exactly with the layout of the questions). Ree and Wegner (1990) have shown in a large-scale experiment that potential recruits do worse on the "NLSY answer sheet" than on the military one. Comparing two groups of potential enlists, the authors found that the gaps in scores between the "NLSY answer sheet" and the military one increase with GT scores (the sum of arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, and paragraph comprehension standardized scores).…”

Section: A11 Problem With Asvab Normingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivation, Test Scores, and Economic Success

Segal

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that low-stakes test scores, available in surveys, may be partially determined by test-taking motivation, which is associated with personality traits but not with cognitive ability. Therefore, such test score distributions may not be informative regarding cognitive ability distributions. Moreover, correlations, found in survey data, between high test scores and economic success may be partially caused by favorable personality traits. To demonstrate these points, I use the coding speed test that was administered without incentives to National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY) participants. I suggest that due to its simplicity its scores may especially depend on individuals' test-taking motivation. I show that controlling for conventional measures of cognitive skills, the coding speed scores are correlated with future earnings of male NLSY participants. Moreover, the coding speed scores of highly motivated, though less educated, population (potential enlists to the armed forces) are higher than NLSY participants' scores. I then use controlled experiments to show that when no performance-based incentives are provided, participants' characteristics, but not their cognitive skills, affect effort invested in the coding speed test. Thus, participants with the same ability (measured by their scores on an incentivized test) have significantly different scores on tests without performancebased incentives.JEL Codes: J24, J31, C91

show abstract

Correcting Differences in Answer Sheets for the 1980 Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Reference Population

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Subtest and Composite Validity of ASVAB Forms 11, 12, and 13 for Technical Training Courses

Subtest and Composite Validity of ASVAB Forms 11, 12, and 13 for Technical Training Courses

The correlation of cognitive and psychomotor tests

Motivation, Test Scores, and Economic Success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About