Joan J. Michael

The Relationship of Performance on Objective Achievement Examinations to the Order in which Students Complete Them

on objective achievement examinations with generous time limits and the order in which they finished their tests. In a preliminary investigation in 1964 involving use of an open-book objective final examination in an introductory measurement and evaluation course, the second author found a significant curvilinear relationship between the order in which 90 students turned in their papers and their scores. Relative to whether they were among the first, second, or last third of the examinees to turn in their answer sheets, the numbers who ranked in the top, middle, or bottom thirds of performance were, respectively, 8, 12, and 10; 16, 10, and 4; and 6, 8, and 16. Thus, it appeared that those students who took a moderate amount of time were most likely to earn the highest scores. The implication of this finding was that the validity of

The Concurrent Validity of the Sprigle School Screening Readiness Test for a Sample of Preschool and Kindergarten Children.

Problem. It was the primary purpose of this study to determine the degree of relationship between the Sprigle School Readiness Screening Test (Sprigle) and the Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT) with the view to substituting the Sprigle for the Metropolitan. Secondarily, it was the purpose to investigate the relationship between scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (both Peabody IQ score and Peabody raw score) and the MRT. Procedure and subjects. One hundred children (25 preschool and 75 kindergarten in suburban Southern California), ranging in age from four years and 10 months to six years and nine months, were given the three tests. Starting in June 1970 and continuing through Janua.ry 1971, the MRT (Form A), the Sprigle, and the Peabody (Form A) were administered in random order according to the

The Criterion-Related Validities of Cognitive and Noncognitive Predictors in a Training Program for Nursing Candidates.

IT was the three-fold purpose of this investigation (1) to cite the validity coefficients of seven standardized cognitive test measures, four indices of high school achievement, and two scales from each of two self-report inventories in the prediction of grades in each of eight courses in a program of nursing education for the 1969-1970 period taken by a total sample of 128 students at the Los Angeles County Hospital, (2) to report validity coefficients with respect to the same combinations of predictor and criterion variables just mentioned for a sample of 96 candidates who survived the first part of the program and continued during the second segment, and (3) to indicate for this sample of 96 successful candidates the validity coefficients of the same predictor variable with respect to each of eight additional criterion measures representing other course work in the

Structure of Intellect Theory and theValidity of Achievement Examinations

(1964) and Taba (1962) have made the same point that the nature of examinations determines that which is learned. Thus, it is the writer’s contention that even if careful attention is paid to structure of intellect (SI) theory in (1) formulating the philosophy of an educational system, (2) translating this philosophical commitment into behavioral objectives, and (3) utilizing findings of developmental and learning research in structuring the teaching-learning situations and methods, little if any benefits of the SI model will be reaped unless achievement testing as well reflects this model. Furst’s (1958) paradigm below indicates the dependent nature of

The Factored Dimensions of the Study Attitudes and Methods Survey Test - Experimental Form.

DURING the past 20 years the third mentioned author has been accumulating a nucleus of test items involving study activities and attitudes that have been shown to possess criterion-related validity relative to measures of high school and college achievement. From time to time he has written additional items and subjected them to both empirical and construct validation. It was the purpose of this investigation to report efforts directed toward identifying psychological dimensions underlying the responses of high school and college students to 167 statements describing their attitudes and work habits in a school setting. The isolation and description of a small number of constructs was thought to af-

Book Reviews : J. P. Guilford. Intelligence, Creativity, and Their Educational Implications. San Diego, Cal.: Robert R. Knapp, Publisher, 1968. Pp. viii + 229.

troduction to Chapter 4 does not agree with the order that subsequently appears. But my discontents are obviously minor ones. As long as educators are committed to teach courses on educational research, and as long as they do not delude themselves into thinking the broad objectives of the courses they teach can be more than those enunciated earlier in this review, then the volume compiled by Gephart and Ingle should be seriously considered as a reference work. It lacks, as most books of readings lack, the completeness of coverage and the consistency of style and viewpoint desirable in a textbook. However, as a secondary or supplementary reference, this book will contribute substantially to a students’ knowledge of the main problems and issues of the research process in education.

7.95

advanced graduate level, needs to know such gems as: “larger and better (sic) school systems have made effective use” of test specialists “for years”; or that “there are a number of ways that test scores are misused or overused”? These kinds of generalizations again confirm the suspicion that this is not such an advanced set of readings, after all. The lapse into a concern for teachers and classroom testing may be excusable, but surely some more profound thoughts have been formulated. Among authors whose selections appear in this section are Ebel, Diederich, Stanley, TVomer and Lennon, each and every one of whom has had better things to say. The final section on measurement in research, recovers the impetus of the earlier sections, somewhat. There is a very useful article by Brownell on evaluating learning under different systems of instruction, an article by Allport on traits, by Comrey on the logic of measurement, and so on. All very useful and mature contributions. Apart from references a t the end of some articles, there are no guidelines for further (yet further) reading. The authors have written perhaps 50 to 100 words to introduce each article: the introductions are often more irritating than illuminating, and rarely worth bothering with. How to sum up? One can really do little other than reiterate that somewhere along the line of educational progress, measurement students will undoubtedly profit from an acquaintance with many-if not m o s t o f the articles adduced. When, and to what extent, will depend on the individual instructor. But a prospective user could probably make good use of much of this material a t n relatively early stage in the educative process, and return to it a t more advanced stages as fuel for debate. Perhaps Johnson forestalled the reader when he said, “read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.”