Method for comprehensive integrated assessment in a course of study or occupation

A method using a computer for creating and comprehensively analyzing in an integrated manner a test and course of study or job performance, assessing multiple transferrable skills within the context of course competencies at the individual test assessment level, comprising the steps of selecting a desired taxonomy system having a plurality of taxonomy items defining abilities relating to learning, performance or achievement pertaining to the course of study, storing in memory an assessment item, the proposed answers, and the correct answer, for each assessment item, storing in memory the appropriate taxonomy items in the taxonomy system that pertain to the abilities which the respective assessment item addresses, repeatedly storing in memory a new assessment item, the appropriate taxonomy items, and appropriate proposed and correct answer for each assessment item, to create an entire test of a common variety (multiple choice, essay, performance) and so as to allow retrieval of all answers and coded information for each assessment item, analyzing the test by generating a report showing the relationship between the preselected taxonomy items and each assessment item to which the taxonomy items are assigned.

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION 
The present invention relates to computer programs used by educators and 
employers to write tests, analyze and track results. 
In particular, the invention is a method in the form of a computer program 
that facilitates the creation of tests having one or more assessment 
items, i.e. questions, used for analyzing training, a program of study, 
job, job performance, or performance criteria of one or more individuals 
that uses a comprehensive coding system and method for tracking learner 
successes and allows for integrated assessments using a taxonomy system 
with taxonomies and codes and/or reference items in relation to each test 
assessment item. 
Several major trends have been and continue to emerge in the education and 
employment assessment fields. In particular, there has been an increasing 
emphasis on criterion referenced tests. Criterion referenced tests are 
those tests having questions, or assessment items, designed to demonstrate 
a specific ability. Criterion reference testing developed from a 
recognition that past performance is sometimes the best predictor of 
future performance. Criterion reference testing may supplement, augment or 
replace aptitude tests. 
For example, a student in a photography class might be asked as one 
question on a test "What is the difference in light intensity as the light 
source is moved towards or away from the subject." The answer, pertaining 
to the inverse square law, would relate to the criteria, that "Student can 
apply the inverse square law using a single light source." In the 
employment domain, the criteria for a test item might be "Employee can set 
up a slicing machine to slice meat to a predetermined thickness." Each 
statement is a criterion that is an ability. 
These types of tests are distinguished from achievement tests in that, 
contrary to achievement tests that compare individuals achievements in a 
certain subject area, they are a more absolute measurement of the 
individual's mastery of a course compentency, i.e., the criterion 
reference approach. The present invention codes competencies for specific 
criterion. 
Criterion referenced testing becomes significant also as the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and other similar state, federal and regulatory bodies of 
law, are followed by employers to assure compliance. In particular, 
insofar as the ADA is concerned, applicants with certain pre-existing 
conditions must be fairly screened in the job interview process and in the 
advancement process. The need for a computer program that allows the 
individual employer to create assessment items in advance of the job 
interview, each of which assessment item is integrated with an objective 
criterion or ability required, such as a competency code and taxonomies, 
discussed later, allows the ability to more uniformly and fairly examine 
applicants. Each job, thus, has a certain number of criteria that needs to 
be met, and establishing these criteria, examining the same and 
integrating the responses and analyzing the same with competency codes and 
taxonomies, discussed later, significantly improve the probability of a 
fair, non-discriminatory treatment of applicants and employees. Job 
descriptions are prepared that identify essential job duties and that 
specify the required abilities to perform these tests. 
Most jobs require certain skills as basic abilities, transferable skills, 
along with the specific vocational skills that are required of the 
effective worker. 
While the invention is not limited to its use in education and employment, 
it is significant to note that the two fields increasingly become 
interrelated as the educational system moves towards testing based on 
criterion referencing. The prior art lacks an integrated assessment 
process. The coding system in the invention allows for an integrated 
assessment by analyzing several taxonomies within each test item and 
tracking learner successes with respect to each taxonomy to discover the 
strengths and/or weaknesses of the learner in that area and correlate them 
to task competencies and/or duty competencies. While computer programs are 
available to assist teachers to prepare tests, no program provides a 
method for creating comprehensive criterion referenced testing using a 
taxonomy system, competency codes, task importance, skill levels, and 
references to source information. None has offered any means to assess or 
analyze transferable skills that are taught, practiced, and acquired in a 
course of study, training program or job while assessing the referenced 
criterion at the assessment level. 
It is important that educators and employers be able to create their own 
tests of this kind in the field according to their needs and objectives. 
Known existing programs for creating tests are very limited, 
non-comprehensive and primarily allow for preparing the individual 
assessment items and recording each in their own record in a database only 
with no comprehensive taxonomy system using multiple taxonomies, or 
ability to analyze the quality of the test within the context of such 
taxonomy system and using codes, nor any ability to meaningfully track a 
testee's responses within the comprehensive taxonomy and code system. The 
invention also performs this analysis according to each assessment item. 
The taxonomy system in the invention is comprised of taxonomies that 
together make up the broad range of preferred behaviors that are intended 
to be assessed, such as working with data, working with people, working 
with things, reasoning, math, language, etc. Another taxonomy system may 
instead be cognition, psychomotor, affective, working with computers. In 
each of these the testee may show different behaviors. The invention then 
tracks and analyzes the results according to the taxonomies and other 
codes with each question or assessment item to provide an analysis or 
profile data within a true criterion referenced framework. 
The inventive process also includes a reference for each assessment item 
indicating a reference source of material on which the question is based, 
i.e., the reference source for learning the subject material. In an 
employment setting it might reference a particular job analysis previously 
done. This also allows one then to determine whether what is being 
assessed has been taught. For example, if a specific item of reference 
material is not shown in a list of references, then that particular 
reference item may not be being taught, or covered in the course. 
The process also allows for the test creator to input for each assessment 
item a task importance code for the particular competency being assessed, 
in order to provide a rating apart from the skill required to successfully 
complete the test item that rates the importance of the duty that the test 
item is qualifying. 
Moreover, the process allows for a special instruction to be inputted, 
restored and retrieved with each test item. The special instruction 
remains with the test item whenever the test item is retrieved from the 
database, in essence coupled to the test item. The special instruction 
provides a list of tools or other materials that are to be used as 
auxiliary materials for that particular test item, by test item number. 
This allows the course/test matter to print as a cover to the test the 
auxiliary materials needed to take the test. 
The process also allows for a task description statement step to be 
inputted with each assessment item that is essentially a shorter 
paraphrase of the overall task that the assessment item addresses. There 
may be several different assessment items dealing with the same task item. 
Thus the test creator is allowed to create a course of study for that 
particular task by retrieving all test assessment items for that task. Of 
course a manager can enter the test items and use the program to search 
the relevant codes to develop lessons from the details within the test 
items. 
The process also provides for defining and inputting a skill level code for 
each assessment item. 
Still further, the invention allows for inputting an occupational code for 
each individual assessment item so as to recall assessment items and all 
particular coupled information, by occupational cluster code or subgroups 
within the cluster code. 
The invention also allows the merging or splitting of custom test files for 
a particular individualized instruction, i.e., test creator manually or 
individually selecting the required codes for the particular required 
individualized instruction. In particular, the computer program includes 
the steps of automatically creating individualized assessment and 
individualized instruction in areas in which a less adequate assessment is 
achieved. 
The inventive process also allows for individual course/job competency 
files to be created and maintained on an ongoing basis to record 
competencies from many tests. Moreover, the assessment item is coded as 
either multiple choice, essay style (short or long answer) or analytical 
performance. These are categorized as either passive or active 
assessments. The individual competency files then are analyzed in the 
process to track the passive or active assessments for each competency, 
and their respective responses, to determine in the individual's 
competency file his or her performance. If an individual shows higher 
performance in passive (multiple choice) questions than in active (essay), 
then one can differentiate the individual's specific ability with respect 
to that competency. 
The object of the invention then is to create a method using a computer for 
creating and comprehensively analyzing in an integrated manner a test and 
course of study or job performance, with the ability to plan a course of 
study that instructs and assesses multiple transferable skills within the 
context of course competencies at the individual test item assessment 
level. 
Other objects and features of the invention and the manner in which the 
invention achieves its purpose will be appreciated from the foregoing and 
the following description and the accompanying drawings which exemplify 
the invention, it being understood that changes may be made in the 
specific method and apparatus disclosed herein without departing from the 
essentials of the invention set forth in the appended claims.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS AND PROCESS 
The preferred process is referred to principally in the flow chart shown in 
FIG. 1. The computer program involved is, in the preferred mode of 
operation, one that operates on a standard MS-DOS.TM. based personal 
computer based system, networked or otherwise. The preferred apparatus is 
a 286 or higher version (386, 486, Pentium.TM. etc.) processor system 
although even the relatively old 8088 based systems will support the 
program. The method as designed envisions that many school systems and 
businesses will have older processor based systems, even though the 
current state of the art involves Pentium.TM., Power PC and equivalents. 
The program is also envisioned to be operated on Windows.TM., and in other 
operating systems and computers including Macintosh.TM.. The basic system 
requires a hard disk drive of any standard size available, a minimum of 5 
megabytes. The required memory is 640K with no extended or expanded 
memory. The typical CRT monitor and printer of any kind are also used. 
The overall flow process as shown in the flow chart shown in FIG. 1. 
Subprocess steps for each of the primary steps in FIG. 1 are shown in more 
detailed form in separate FIGS. 2 through 7. 
At the outset, one simply assures that the computer is on and calls up the 
program from the disk drive. The first screen having meaningful steps 
shown is that in Appendix 1. As depicted, the user desiring to build a 
test selects the test building (management) section and either edits (or 
merges) or creates a new test. 
Assuming a new test is to be created, the user first selects whether it is 
a multiple choice, essay or performance test. A multiple choice test, 
principally a passive test, simply allows the test creator to create a 
test being either a true/false variety or one having several answers, only 
one of which is usually correct. Essay may be short answer or long answer, 
and includes fill in the blank. It is of the active assessment variety. 
The performance test is one where the test giver is recording the 
performance of usually a series of steps taken to perform a task by the 
test taker. This might be the employer observing an employee performing 
the task to assure that all steps required for the task are performed. 
Performance tests are active assessment tests. 
This active/passive information is used later in a number of ways to 
analyze the results based on passive or active assessment and in other 
ways as will be seen. 
All assessment items (test questions) in each test are envisioned in the 
preferred mode of being of only one type, i.e., a separate test might have 
a number of assessment items or questions but they will all be of the same 
type, i.e., all multiple choice, all essay or all performance. 
Once the type of test is selected, in the preferred mode the next principal 
screen is displayed, essentially in the form shown in Appendix 2, where 
one next inputs the actual test question, proposed answers and correct 
answers in separate fields (although in multiple choice, the correct 
answer is inserted later). In Appendix 2, the sample question is shown 
relating to incident light, with four possible answers. The specific test 
question is recorded in a specific data field so as to allow it to be 
stored into memory separately. The fields are referred to throughout as 
containing separate storable and retrievable items of data. In a different 
recordable and retrievable data field is inserted the answer for the test 
question. 
Unless otherwise referred to herein, inputting refers to retrievably 
storing in storage memory means specific data; generating a report refers 
to printing on printing means, or displaying on CRT terminal means or 
generating a report for display in any peripheral, data for files 
retrieved from memory in a desired format. 
The preferred process continues with the following steps: 
Next, input the reference information indicating the educational or other 
job analysis reference on which the test item and answer are selected or 
based, to provide the source for training or learning. 
Next, input the desired occupational code to which the assessment item 
references. Once such code is the occupational cluster code utilized by 
the U.S. Department of Labor in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles 3. 
This cluster code is also referred to as occupational categories, 
divisions and groups. It is intended to represent in code form many of the 
desired occupations to which the assessment item relates. 
Next, input a preselected competency code coding the specific competency 
required to do the task that is being assessed in the test question. The 
competency code can be predesigned by the test creator but in the 
preferred mode these codes are usually codes representing such things as 
duties within a job, or "demonstrate an understanding of . . . " or 
"demonstrate an ability to use . . . " or "demonstrate skill in handling . 
. . ", etc. These competency codes, in the preferred mode, match the 
course competency codes referred to later. 
Next, input a special instruction keyed to the assessment item as an 
integral part of the test item, listing in textual form the tools 
(protractors, compasses, graphs, rulers, music, etc.) and other materials 
that are to be used as auxiliary materials for that particular test item 
or other special directions. The screen showing the format for the special 
information is shown in Appendix 3. A cover page to the test can then 
later be printed, by assessment item number, the various tools and 
materials needed to take the test. The special instruction for that 
particular item moves with the test item and is thus keyed to the 
assessment question and wherever the test item is recalled from memory so 
that if various tests are created with that assessment item, the special 
instruction set is always coupled and retrievable from memory with the 
assessment item. It is also used in the lesson plan/study guide section to 
produce a tool list for lesson plans and study guides. 
Next, input into a separate field the predefined task description that is a 
paraphrased description of the task being assessed by the assessment item. 
Several assessment items in the same test may have the same task 
description which may vary from the course/job competencies. Consequently, 
this allows the test creator to create study sheets, lesson plans and 
study guides from the test items that are designed to address specific 
tasks, simply by calling up a task description and all of the test items 
coupled to that test description. Moreover, the study guides are designed 
to always print the task descriptions and competency codes so as to enable 
one to know what particular task he or she is studying for, along with 
other reasons. 
Next, select the taxonomy system and input the taxonomy codes. Taxonomy 
systems can be of any predefined type of interest to the test creator that 
comprise classes of behavior to be tested for and developed. The system is 
a plurality of taxonomies that are together a comprehensive categorical 
system for classifying behaviors using a range of codes (descriptions) for 
measurement thereof. In the preferred mode, using the U.S. Department of 
Labor Dictionary, the categories for taxonomies are "data", "people", and 
"things", along with "reasoning", "math", and "language", and are each 
included in separate fields with their own range of codes to reflect the 
type of behaviors in that particular taxonomy. The preferred screen format 
is shown in Appendix 4. For example, the taxonomy "Data" might include a 
range of values of 1-10. The number inserted would depend on whether the 
assessment item is considered to be one dealing primarily with "Data." The 
same assessment item might have a different range of values for the 
taxonomy "People" and the code inserted for "People" would depend on 
whether the test giver considered the assessment item to be more directed 
to "People" skills for example. Also included is a separate field for 
user-defined taxonomy of any kind particular or desirable to the 
educational institution, educator or employer uses of the program. 
Next, input a skill level rating for the particular task for that 
particular population or occupation, preferably a nonlinear rating system. 
This skill level is, in the preferred mode, nonlinear. For example in the 
preferred mode, the scale would be one having a scale of 1, 2, 4, 6, with 
6 being the highest skill level so as not to overrate or overweight those 
individuals or individual scores that are performing well. These overall 
scores may be used to compare results amongst performances and the 
nonlinear weighting system allows one to more fairly or accurately rate 
the value of performing at a higher level. A percentage score is generated 
from this also showing the successes (successful answers) and resulting 
overall percentage. 
Next, input a task importance code utilizing a predetermined code to 
indicate the importance of the task being assessed for the particular 
occupation involved, preferably nonlinear similar to that of the skill 
level, preferably 1, 2, 4, 6 with 6 being given the value for the more 
important tasks. Consequently a test creator can determine whether the 
more important tasks are being performed at minimum. From this also is 
created a percentage score. For example, a test having four questions, 
each having an importance level of 1, 2, 4, 6, is taken and the test taker 
misses the least important question out of the four, his score remains 12 
out of 13, 92%. Consequently missing 25% of the test questions still 
results in a relatively high score. Thus, the skill level and task 
importance code, while seemingly similar, are in fact meaningfully 
different. The skill level determines the level of skill involved with the 
task (which is tracked in the competency file); the task importance 
indicates that, while the level of skill may be high, it is not of 
significant importance in performing the task. In an educational and/or 
career setting and environment, and in a society recognizant of the value 
of certain training, one can determine whether such coding and tracking 
allows one to determine relative worth versus relative skill of the 
assessment item, i.e., whether the assessment item that was incorrectly 
answered was of significant value. 
Next, input a reading level code based on a predetermined range of codes, 
to rate the reading level to which the assessment items are directed. This 
allows the test giver to determine, for instance, whether a certain 
individual is having difficulty reading test questions at a certain 
reading level. This may indicate more of a reading problem rather than a 
performance problem. 
Next, input intelligence types to which the question is primarily directed. 
to a screen to input what are commonly referred to as the intelligence 
types: "linguistic", "logical", "spacial", "bodily" (kinesthetic), 
"musical", "intrapersonal", "interpersonal". The user inserts an X or 
leaves blank at each one to indicate whether the assessment item addresses 
the particular intelligence, i.e., preferred learning styles or 
temperaments. No range of values is required for each one. Appendix 5 
shows the screen in the preferred mode. 
Next, input the correct answer if the test item is a multiple choice 
question, unless already inserted earlier. 
At each step in the process, or at any time in the process, the information 
inserted in the field is stored in memory, preferably on the hard disk 
drive. 
One then proceeds to the next test question and repeats the process, or if 
there are no further test questions, the test is ready to be analyzed (or 
if analyzed previously, proceed to the test taking and scoring process or 
to the database creation process or lesson building process). If there are 
no further questions, the test is stored in memory. The test analysis 
process, shown in more detail in the preferred mode in FIG. 3, shows the 
process for analyzing the test in a comprehensive manner using the various 
codes discussed to determine the quality of the test in a comprehensive 
manner. Here the user selects the test from the test file database by 
retrieving the test from memory. 
First, in the preferred mode, the user generates a report that lists all 
codes for each individual assessment item, as shown in Appendix 6. To one 
familiar with the selected taxonomy system and the codes and skill levels 
for example, the apparent value of assessing the test's quality in this 
manner becomes apparent. 
The user then generates a report comprising a comprehensive tally of all of 
the codes that exist within the selected test file. This likewise shows 
the different codes, skill levels, reading levels, and taxonomies, tested 
for throughout the entire test. Such a report is shown in Appendix 7. 
If any revisions are needed to the test based on the test analysis, the 
test creator can then edit any assessment items in the test building 
section. 
Next, in the preferred mode, the test is taken, as shown in FIG. 4. First, 
one selects taking the test on computer as a "CBT" test (computer based 
test), or in the alternative as a printed test. If a CBT test process is 
selected, the individual testee is selected (or create a new file for the 
individual with name, age, etc). Next the test is selected. (However, 
certain advantages may be obtained by reversing the latter two steps, i.e. 
selecting the test before selecting the testee). Then, special 
instructions are first printed out (or displayed) prior to giving the test 
identifying the materials or special instructions needed to take the test. 
Each answer is then recorded on the computer and stored into memory in a 
temporary file. 
The test may be taken, in the alternative, as shown in FIG. 4, as printed 
and taken by hand with the answers (responses) inserted manually into the 
computer to be scored. In the latter mode, the test can become essentially 
a performance type test such as where an employee is observed on the job, 
evaluated, with appropriate responses or observations asserted at each 
assessment stage, and, as opposed to the CBT test, allows the tester to 
"ignore" certain questions during the test taking and scoring process. 
Whether it is the CBT or the printed test, the assessment items are dealt 
with one by one, answered by either the testee or recorded by the test 
giver. 
The computer retrieves from the test file database the answers to the 
questions and compares them to the testee's answers in the temporary file 
and records the results (successes) in the temporary file. A score sheet 
and code analysis are then printed showing the testee's results on each 
question in relation to the code such that the results of the testing show 
with regard to each taxonomy and other code(s) throughout, the performance 
level. Appendixes 8, 9, 10 show the preferred reports. The testee's 
results from the tests stored in the temporary file are then merged and 
added to the testee's permanent individual competency profile file and 
stored in memory so as to provide a data file with regard to each of the 
codes used throughout the course, education or career, and are stored so 
as to retrieve and track independently the results and performance 
according to responses to passive or active questions and to do so 
distinctly from the taxonomies. The temporary file is then deleted. 
In the preferred mode, the additional steps of recording and creating a 
competency database section are shown in FIG. 5. Here the user, typically 
the teacher or employer, creates a course/job competency first, then an 
individual competency database for individuals, as desired. This allows 
the user to create a course competency showing the objectives of the 
course and to determine whether all of the tests given during the course 
will meet the objectives in the end. Likewise, the individual competency 
database process, FIG. 6, allows tracking of the individual's progress as 
it pertains to the respective course. 
Next, additional steps in the preferred mode include inputting the 
competencies required for the course, inputting the occupational code 
involved for the competency, and doing so for each competency code and 
occupational code in the same format as the test item input of these codes 
used in the test building process. These are retrievably stored in memory. 
Analyzation involves the additional steps of selecting the course file, 
retrieving from the memory the test or tests to analyze (which may be all 
tests during the course or over a selected time span), generating a report 
of all codes, values and levels for each competency item along with the 
passive/active combination for each assessment item. 
Next, the additional steps of updating and analyzing the individual 
competency database (FIG. 6) are performed to provide a process for 
tracking the individual learner's development as it pertains to each 
course competency/occupation job code. These steps are comprised of the 
steps of creating an individual competency database if one is not already 
created, selecting the individual competency database created, selecting 
the respective course/job competency file, merging the individual data and 
course competencies from the course competency file into an individual 
competency file, record and store in memory where each record has fields 
to retrievably store individual scores in each competency, taxonomy, and 
occupational cluster code (or other occupation code). Analysis involves 
the additional steps of generating a report showing successes (learner 
correct responses) for each competency according to active/passive 
distinctions, then reporting assessment successes for each taxonomy, then 
generating a report showing successes according to occupational cluster 
codes. 
FIG. 7 shows the remaining steps for utilizing the program to develop a 
lesson or course (or training) plan, comprising the steps of selecting the 
test file or files pertaining to the respective lesson or course under 
consideration, retrieving from memory the task descriptions, reference 
data and special instructions for the assessment items using selected 
occupational codes and competency codes to create a lesson plan file, then 
retrievably storing the lesson plan file in memory, generating a report of 
the tasks and descriptions and the pertinent reference text and special 
instructions, generating a report showing occupation codes, competency 
codes, task descriptions, reference data and special instructions. 
For example, the user might select all assessment items having to do with 
the competency code for learning lightwave theory in a physics course by 
generating a report that shows not only the competency code and the 
reference data and task descriptions, but also shows the occupation(s) it 
may be directed to. 
In this manner the educator/employer can be best assure that the proper 
training will have been given for the test items involved. 
Consequently, what is shown is a step-by-step process to assure, using the 
comprehensive set of codes throughout, that the educator/trainer can be 
best assured the particular competencies, transferrable skills, tasks, 
skill levels, are not only taught but are tested for. 
While there have been shown and described particular embodiments of the 
invention, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that changes and 
modifications may be made without departing from the invention or its 
equivalent, and, therefore, it is intended by the appended claims to cover 
all such changes and modifications as fall within the true spirit and 
scope of the invention. 
APPENDIX 1 
______________________________________ 
PC-TEST Main Program Menu 
______________________________________ 
F1 Select Individual And Take A Selected Test 
F2 Test File Management Program 
F3 Change Data Drive.backslash.Path Setup 
F4 Analyze Test Data Files 
ESC Quit And Exit This Program 
______________________________________ 
APPENDIX 2 
______________________________________ 
Question #1 Press Ctrl-End To Abort This Edit. Answer A 
INCIDENT LIGHT IS: 
______________________________________ 
A LIGHT THAT FALLS ON THE SUBJECT. 
B LIGHT THAT IS INCIDENTALLY DIFFUSED. 
C LIGHT THAT IS HARD IN QUALITY. 
D PRODUCES THE SPECULAR HIGHLIGHT. 
R #1, PAGE 24 
______________________________________ 
Competency Task Reference Code: 143.A2 
APPENDIX 3 
______________________________________ 
Question #1 Press Ctrl-End To Abort This Edit. Answer A 
INCIDENT LIGHT IS: 
______________________________________ 
A LIGHT THAT FALLS ON THE SUBJECT. 
B LIGHT THAT IS INCIDENTALLY DIFFUSED. 
C LIGHT THAT IS HARD IN QUALITY. 
D PRODUCES THE SPECULAR HIGHLIGHT. 
R #1, PAGE 24 
______________________________________ 
Special Instruction For This Question 
APPENDIX 4 
______________________________________ 
Question #1 Press Ctrl-End To Abort This Edit. Answer A 
INCIDENT LIGHT IS: 
______________________________________ 
A LIGHT THAT FALLS ON THE SUBJECT. 
B LIGHT THAT IS INCIDENTALLY DIFFUSED. 
C LIGHT THAT IS HARD IN QUALITY. 
D PRODUCES THE SPECULAR HIGHLIGHT. 
R #1, PAGE 24 
______________________________________ 
Dictionary of Occupational Title Codes 
DATA 3 PEOPLE THNGS RSNG MATH LANG 3 TXNMY 1 TSKIMP 4 SKLVL 4 RDLVL 9 
APPENDIX 5 
______________________________________ 
INCIDENT LIGHT IS: 
______________________________________ 
A LIGHT THAT FALLS ON THE SUBJECT. 
B LIGHT THAT IS INCIDENTALLY DIFFUSED. 
C LIGHT THAT IS HARD IN QUALITY. 
D PRODUCES THE SPECULAR HIGHLIGHT. 
R #1, PAGE 24 
______________________________________ 
Intelligences Coding (X in block) 
LNGSTIC X LOGICAL SPATIAL X MUSICAL BODILY INTERPSNL INTRAPSNL 
APPENDIX 6 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Overall Analysis of Test me: VICASPLT 
Date/Time Printed: 03-17-1996 11:41:27 
Test Name: PHOTOGRAPHY CHAMPIONSHIP TEST 
Intelligences Coding DOT Codes OTHER 
QN # CTRC 
LNG 
LOG 
SPT 
MUS 
BOD INP 
EXP 
DAT 
PPL 
THG 
RSN 
MTH LNG 
TAX 
TSK SKL 
RDL 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
1 143. 
X X 3 3 1 4 4 9 
2 143. 
X X X X 2 4 3 5 4 4 9 
3 143. 
X X X X 2 4 3 2 6 4 10 
4 143. 
X X X X 2 1 4 4 4 6 6 10 
5 143B 
X X 2 3 3 3 6 4 7 
6 143B 
X X X 2 7 4 3 4 4 6 8 
7 143B 
X X X X 2 7 3 4 4 6 6 12 
8 143B 
X X X X 1 1 3 4 2 4 6 11 
9 143G 
X X X 2 6 2 3 6 2 10 
10 143C 
X X X X 1 7 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 
11 143B 
X X X 1 4 3 7 4 6 9 
12 143B 
X X 1 4 3 4 2 4 6 9 
13 143H 
X 3 7 3 6 2 7 
14 143B 
X X X 1 4 3 3 3 4 4 10 
15 143A 
X X X 2 3 4 3 2 4 10 
TOTALS: 15 12 8 0 1 1 9 15 2 8 13 0 15 13 15 15 15 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
APPENDIX 7 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Analysis By Code Type on Test File: VICASPLT 
Date/Time Printed: 03-17-1996 11:41:27 
Test Name PHOTOGRAPHY CHAMPIONSHIP TEST 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
DATA 
##STR1## 
PEOPLE 
##STR2## 
THINGS 
##STR3## 
REASONING 
##STR4## 
MATH 
##STR5## 
LANGUAGE 
##STR6## 
TAXONOMY 
##STR7## 
TASK IMPORTANCE 
##STR8## 
SKILL LEVEL 
##STR9## 
READING LEVEL 
##STR10## 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
APPENDIX 8 
______________________________________ 
PHOTO CHAMPIONSHIP TEST 
Test Date: 03-16-1996 
Name: BRIAN BRUNKOW 
I.D.: 
Grade Level: File Name: BRUB 
______________________________________ 
INTELLIGENCES 
SAMPLE SIZE CORRECT PERCENTAGE 
************* 
*********** ******* ********** 
______________________________________ 
LINGUISTIC 15 9 60 
LOGICAL 12 6 50 
SPATIAL 8 4 50 
MUSICAL 1 1 100 
BODILY 
INTERPERSONAL 
1 1 100 
INTRAPERSONAL 
9 3 33 
______________________________________ 
DOT FUNCTIONS 
SAMPLE SIZE CORRECT PERCENTAGE 
************* 
*********** ******* ********** 
______________________________________ 
DATA CODE 0 
DATA CODE 1 
5 3 60 
DATA CODE 2 
8 4 50 
DATA CODE 3 
2 2 100 
DATA CODE 4 
DATA CODE 5 
DATA CODE 6 
PEOPLE CODE 0 
PEOPLE CODE 1 
PEOPLE CODE 2 
PEOPLE CODE 3 
PEOPLE CODE 4 
PEOPLE CODE 5 
PEOPLE CODE 6 
1 1 100 
PEOPLE CODE 7 
1 1 100 
PEOPLE CODE 8 
THINGS CODE 0 
THINGS CODE 1 
2 0 0 
THINGS CODE 2 
THINGS CODE 3 
THINGS CODE 4 
3 2 67 
THINGS CODE 5 
THINGS CODE 6 
THINGS CODE 7 
3 1 33 
______________________________________ 
______________________________________ 
PHOTO CHAMPIONSHIP TEST 
Test Date: 03-16-1996 
Name: BRIAN BRUNKOW 
I.D.: 
Grade Level: File Name: BRUB 
______________________________________ 
GENERAL 
EDUCATIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT SAMPLE SIZE 
CORRECT PERCENTAGE 
*********** *********** 
******* ********** 
______________________________________ 
REASONING 6 
REASONING 5 1 1 100 
REASONING 4 6 3 50 
REASONING 3 6 3 50 
REASONING 2 
REASONING 1 
MATHEMATICAL 6 
MATHEMATICAL 5 
MATHEMATICAL 4 
MATHEMATICAL 3 
MATHEMATICAL 2 
MATHEMATICAL 1 
LANGUAGE 6 
LANGUAGE 5 
LANGUAGE 4 10 7 70 
LANGUAGE 3 5 2 40 
LANGUAGE 2 
LANGUAGE 1 
TAXONOMY 9 1 1 100 
TAXONOMY 8 3 1 33 
TAXONOMY 7 4 3 75 
TAXONOMY 6 3 0 0 
TAXONOMY 5 1 1 100 
TAXONOMY 4 
TAXONOMY 3 1 1 100 
TAXONOMY 2 
TAXONOMY 1 
______________________________________ 
APPENDIX 9 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
##STR11## 
Test Date: 03-16-1996File Name: BRUB 
##STR12## 
##STR13## 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
APPENDIX 10 
______________________________________ 
PHOTO CHAMPIONSHIP TEST 
File Name: C:.backslash.PCT800.backslash.tests.backslash.VICA95 
Test Date: 03-16-1996 
Name: BRIAN BRUNKOW 
I.D.: 
Grade Level: Test Type: Random 
______________________________________ 
Time Started: 22:58:07 
Time Complete: 22:59:47 
Total Time for Test (Minutes): 
1.7 
Minutes per Question: 0.1 
File Question Count: 124 
Question Range (Low-High): 
1-15 
Total Questions Selected: 
15 
Questions Selected For Test: 
15 
Total Questions Scored: 15 
Total Questions Passed: 0 
Number Correct: 9 
Number Incorrect: 6 
Percentage Score: 60% 
Total Odd Numbered Questions Scored = 8 
Odd Numbered Questions Percentage Score = 75% 
Total Even Numbered Questions Scored = 7 
Even Numbered Questions Percentage Score = 43% 
______________________________________