NATIONAL CENTER Series 2 

For HEALTH STATISTICS INumber 24 

PROPERTY
OFTHE


PUBLICATIONSBRANCH 

EDITORIALLIBRARY 

VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA EVALUATION AND METHODS RESEARCH 

a study of the 

Achievement Test 

Used in the Health Examination Surveys 

of Persons Aged6-17 Years 

A methodological 

of the measures 

(Cycle 11) and of 

Washington, D. C. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND 

John W. Gardner 

Secretary 

study of 

used in the 

adolescents 

OF 

WELFARE 

the Wide Range Achievement Test, one 

Health Examination Survey of children 

(Cycle Ill). 

June 1967 

Public Health Service 

Wil Iiam H. Stewart 

Surgeon General 
Public Health Service Publication No. tOOO-Series z-No. 24 

rs e e Su tenden of Doc ents, . Gov en Pri “ 

Was” n, ..,2 - Pr] ce ~ “Y 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

FORREST E. LINDER, PH. D., Director 

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Deputy D/rector 

OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH. D., A.s.szskznt Director for State I?eltztzorzs 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M. A., Statzstrczzl Aa’tlzsor 

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE SC.D., Plarzrzzrzg O//iz-er 

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M. D., Medzcd Consultant 

JAMES E. KELLY, D. D. S., Dwztzzl Advzsor 

LOUIS R. STOLCIS, M. A., Exccutlz’e O//zz-er 

DONALD GREEN, in/ormatzon O//zcer 

OFFICE OF HEALTH STATISTICS ANALYSIS 

I WAOM. hiORIYAi4A, PH D. , h7c?ctOf 

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBERT D. GROVE, PH D.,~iyec~o, 

DIVISION OF HEALTH INTERVIEW STATISTICS 

E LU AH L. WHITE,A.M., Dzrector 

DIVISION OF HEALTH RECORDS STATISTICS 

MONROE G. SIRKEN.PH.D.,Dilecfv


DIVISION OF HEALTH EXAMINATION STATISTICS 

ARTHUR J. MCDOWELL, Direcfnr 

DIVISION OF HEALTH RESOURCES STATISTICS 

SIEGFRIEDA. HOERMANN, 12zTector 

DIVISION OF DATA PROCESSING 

LEoNARD D. MC GANN, Direcfor 

Public Health Service Publication No. 10 C!O-Series 2-No. 24 

Library of Corzgress Catalog Card Number 67-60022 
FOREWORD


The psychological ,programs of the Children’s 

Health Examination Survey (Cycle II) and the Adolescent’s Health Examination Survey (Cycle III) 

aim at providing information concerning the 

number of psychological problems which exist 

in the Nation’s noninstitutionalized population of 

persons aged 6 through 17. Achievement testing, 

therefore, was conducted not to evaluate achievement per se, but because many developmental and 

psychological problems first come to the attention 

of teachers, psychologists, physicians, or other 

caretakers as “achievement problems. ” 

Because of the survey nature of the operation, 

no one health factor, whether physical, physiological, dental, or psychological, can be evaluated 

as thoroughly as it would be in a nonsurvey setting. 

As a result, most of the measurements are 

collected using either specially designed techniques or abbreviated forms of widely used, longer 

procedures. By means of methodological studies 

these special or abbreviated instruments are then 

evaluated to see what relationship exists between 

them and established, criterion measures. 

The instrument chosen for measuring 

achievement in reading and arithmetic in the 

Children’s and the Adolescent’s Health Examination Surveys was the 1963 revision of the Wide 

Range Achievement Test (WRAT) originally published by Joseph Jastak in collaboration with 

Sidney Bijou in 1946. The WRAT is not an abbreviated version of a longer, well established test, nor 

was it specially developed for use in the survey. It 

is a hitherto relatively unproven short test for the 

rapid assessment of achievement skills. It was 

selected because of its brevity and also because 

it was held by many clinicians to be a good 

predictor of performance on the more traditional 

achievement tests. 

Because of the nature of the WRAT, a study 

was designed to establish the relationship between 

it and the Stanford Achievement Tests for individuals in grades 1 through 9 and the Metropolitan 

Achievement Tests for individuals in grades 10 

through 12. Hopefully, a description of this relationship will permit the reader to evaluate our 

forthcoming reports dealing with the incidence 

of underachievement in the Nation’s population of 

persons aged 6 through 17. 

In addition, scientists will have available, for 

the first time, information concerning the relationship between the Wide Range Achievement 

Test (reading and arithmetic sections) and appropriate subtests of the Metropolitan and Stanford Achievement Tests. For a test originally 

published in 1946, such a study is long overdue. 

This study is the product of contract number 

PH 86-65-52 between West Virginia University 

and the National Center for Health Statistics. The 

project director was K. Warner Schaie, Ph. D., 

professor of psychology, West Virginia University; and I was the project officer. Contributions by the examiners and other project 

personnel are gratefully acknowledged. Their 

names are listed in Appendix III. 

Lois R. Chatham, Ph.D. 

Psychological Advisor 

Division of Health Examination Statistics 
---------------------------------------------------------- --

----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------

------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------

-------------------------------------

---------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

----------------------------------

------------------------------

------

---------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

-------------

I


CONTENTS 

Foreword


Introduction


1. Desi~of the Study ------------------------------------------------

General Format


Subjects


Monongalia County Sample


Control Sample


Socioeconomic Characteristics


General Abili~ Level


Test Instruments


Wide Range Achievement Test


Stanford Achievement Test


Metropolitan Achievement Test


Examination Procedure


Reliability of Scoring Procedure


11, The Elementary School Study ---------------------------------------

Background Data ------------------------------------------------

Adequacy of Grade Level Placement


Performanceon the SAT-----------------------------------------

Relation of theWRAT to the SAT---------------------------------

Discrepancies Between WRATand SAT Grade Level Estimates


The WRAT Sections


Interrelationship


Relation to General Ability and Socioeconomic Status


Page 

i 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

6 

8 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

14 

14 

14 

18 

19 

23 

24 

24 

26 
-------- ------- ------- -------

--------- --------- ---------------

------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

-------------

------------------------------

------------------ -------------

-----------------

---------------------------------------------

-------- ------- ------- -------------- --------

-------------

-----------------------

--------- --------- ---------

------------

---------

-------- -------- -------- -------- ------- -------- -------

-------- ------- --------------

------------------------------------------------

----------- ---------------

------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS—Continued 

Page 

111. The Junior High Schml SWdy---------------------------------------

Back~ound Data ------------------------------------------------

Adequacy of Grade Level Placement -

Performance on the SAT----------------------------------------

Relation of theWRATtotheSAT


Discrepancies Between WRATand SAT Grade Level Estimates


The WRAT Sections


Interrelationship


Relation to General Ability and Socioeconomic Status


IV. The Senior High Schwl Smdy ---------------------------------------

Background Data -----------------------------------------------

Adequacy of Grade Level Placement


Performance on the MAT ---------

Relation ofthe WRAT to the MAT---------------------------------

Discrepancies Between WRATand MAT Estimates


The WRATSwtions


Interrelationship -


Relation to General Ability and Socioeconomic Status


V.	 Validity of the WRATat Extreme AbiliWLevels


WRAT Performance at Extreme Levels


Relation Between the WRATand the Criterion Variables


Discrepancies Between WRATand SATGrade Level Scores


VI. Conclusions


Appendix 1. Level Iofthe Wide Range Achievement Test Form Used inthe 

Elementary School S@dy----------------------------------------------


Personal Data -----------------------------------------------------


Test Instructions, Level I Reading .-------


Pre-Reading Section


LevelI—Pronunciation Guide for Reading Test


Level I-Aritimetic


27 

27 

28 

29 

29 

30 

34 

34 

35 

36 

36 

37 

38 

40 

42 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

49 

51 

51 

53 

53 

53 

54 

54 

55 
----------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

------------------------

CONTENTS—Continued 

Page 

Appendix II. Level II of the Wide Range Achievement Test Form Used in the 

Junior and Senior High School Studies 56 

Personal Data ------------------------------------------------------ 56 

Reading Instructions 56 

Level II—Pronunciation Guide for Reading Test 57 

Aritimetic-Level II------------------------------------------------ 58 

Oral Aritimetic-Level II------------------------------------------- 58 

Appendix III. Personnel Participating in the Data Collection and Analysis--- 59 
------------------------ ---

------------------

IN THIS REPORT the suitability of the Wide Range Achievement Test 

as a vaiia measure of schoo!. achievement for use on a national health 

.%?&veyis discussed. 

It was found that the Arithmetic and Reading sections of the 1963 Revises Wide Range Achievement Test have reasonably good construct 

validity as jUdgeU by their relation to the Stanford ana the Met~opolitan 

Achievement Tests. The WRAT was founa to be suitable for use with 

children of widely aiflering socioeconomic back.gvwwuts and different 

ab;lity levels. The Arithmetic section was frond to be valia at both high 

and low ability levels. The Reaaing section, howeve~, was not suitable 

for high school students at the low end of the ability continuum. 

The valiaity of the WRAT as an estimate of graae level placement 

showed considerable vaw”ation. Level I of the Reading and Arithmetic 

sections has a tendency to overestimate actual grade level and achievement as measured by the Stanfova Achievement Test. Level II of the 

Arithmetic section underestimates actual graae level but is a satisfactory estimate of cyitem”on achievement measures. Level II of the Reading St? CtiOn tenas to overestimate actual gYade placement a?ul to underestimate performance on the Stanford Achievement Test for junior high 

school students. For senior high school students it tends to overestimate performance on the Metropolitan Achievement Test and to underestimate graae level placement. 

In spite of the fact that the validity coefficients vary considerably, depending on the Wade level ana geographical vegion involved, there is 

su.cient evidence of substantial cowelation with criterion measures at 

every age level investigated to consider the WRAT a satisjactovy brief 

estimate of school achievement. 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available 

Category not applicable ------------------- . . . 

Quantity zero ---------------------------- -

Quantity more than O but less than 0.05---- 0.0 

Figure does not meet standards of 

reliability or precision * 
A STUDY OF THE 

ACHIEVEMENT TEST


USED	 IN THE HEALTH EXAMINATION SURVEYS 

OF PERSONS AGED 6-17 YEARS 

1 

I K. Warner Schaie, Ph. D., West Vivginia Univemity 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this study is to assess the detail, grouped separately for the analysis of 

validity of the Wide Range Achievement Test the relation between the WRAT and criterion 

(WRAT) in terms of its ability to predict grade measures (1) in elementary grades, (2) for the


level placement on the Metropolitan and the junior high school population, and (3) for the


Stanford Achievement Tests (MAT and SAT), senior high school group. In each instance,


which are the criterion measures. Attention data and appropriate comparisons will be pre-


is given to the discrepancies which exist between sented based on children in the geographical y


the WRAT grade level ratings and performance homogeneous sample (Monongalia County) and


on the criterion measures, in terms of grade on children in control samples from widely


levels. This was done by analyzing the rela- separated geographic regions.


tionships which exist between the WRAT and the A technical study of the type here reported


criterion measures. requires samples which should be reasonably


To control for the bias which might be in- representative of the general population. This 

troduced by the geographic kxation of a sample, does not imply that concerted attempts should 

one sample was chosen which consisted of a be made to attain the exact replication of the 

population of children in grades 1 through 12, population census or to provide random samples 

all of whom were students in a single school of the total population. It is of greater importance 

system. Data from this sample were then com- to ensure the adequate representation of groups 

pared with data obtained from a sample con- at all levels of ability in order to be able to 

sisting of students from widely separated sec- assess properly the success of achievement 

tions of the country. tests in evaluating typical as well as atypical 

Because of the nature of che population performance. Considerable effort was directed, 

investigated, this study had been divided into therefore, toward the objective of achieving


three parts. Thus, after the general design, representativeness by appropriate selection of


criterion measures, and selection of subjects samples.


are described, the results will be reported in


1

1. DESIGN OF 

GENERAL FORMAT 

The Arithmetic and Reading sections of the 

Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) formed 

the basic research instrument and were given 

to all subjects. A group-administered achievement 

battery was also given to each subject. The two 

group tests chosen as the criterion measures 

with which the WRAT was compared were the 

Metropolitan Achievement Test for use with 

grades 10 through 12 and the Stanford Achievement Test for use with grades 1 through 9. With 

the Stanford Achievement Test the form given 

varied with grade placement. 

In addition to the Arithmetic and Reading 

sections of the Wide Range Achievement Test 

and the group achievement tests, information was 

collected on the socioeconomic characteristics of 

the pupils, and scores on general ability tests 

were recorded. 

SUBJECTS 

Monongalia County Sample 

The first sample selected was a relatively 

homogeneous school system chosen for the purpose of providing data concerning the efficacy 

of the WRAT across the different grades. The 

schools were selected to include the broadest 

representation possible of urban and rural children with a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Schools having a marked concentration 

of university faculty children were not included 

in the sample. 

To achieve adequate representation and to 

permit separate analyses at each grade level, 

approximately 50 boys and 50 girls were selected 

from each grade level. Data for the Monongalia 

County, W. Va., sample were obtained in three 

elementary schools, each of which covered grades 

1-6; one junior high school (grades 7-9); one 

junior-senior high school (grades 7-12); and one 

senior high school (grades 10- 12). 

For administrative reasons, as well as to 

avoid the possibility that selection schemes might 

artificially truncate the distribution of talent in 

THE STUDY 

the sample, all children in the elementar y schools, 

the junior-senior high school, and the junior 

high school were tested. Since the high school 

sample was predominantly rural, it was decided 

to supplement it by randomly selected cases from 

the University High School, which served an urban 

area. Here names were picked at random from 

the grade rosters until each grade quota was 

completed. 

Approximately 10 percent oversampling was 

conducted to provide some insurance against the 

contingency that some children were likely to 

drop out or fail to be available for either the 

individual test or the group test. The practical 

necessity of including entire classrooms in the 

testing procedures in some instances required 

the testing of some additional children. Tables 

1 and 2 give the total number of children included in the Monongalia County elementary and 

secondary samples to whom either a group or 

an individual test was given as well as the number 

of children included in the final sample. These 

latter figures indicate the number of subjects 

on whom scorabIe records were obtained in 

both individual and group testing situations and 

on whom data are included in the statistical 

analyses. 

Control Sample 

In order to avoid the possibility of obtaining 

data which would reflect the peculiar circumstances of a single homogeneous school system, 

additional data were collected on children in 

widely dispersed portions of the United States. 

Rather than testing smaller samples, it was 

decided to replicate the sample size but to collect 

data on only four grades in each of three different 

locations. Since the principal sample was collected 

in the mideastern part of the country, the control 

samples were placed in the Midwestern, Rocky 

Mountain, and west coast areas. 

Control sample A covered the first, fourth, 

seventh, and tenth grades and involved two 

elementary schools, a junior high school, and a 

senior high school in Milwaukee County, Wis, 

The schools were selected so as to be at the 

2 
-------

----

-----

--------

----------------------

----------------------

-------

1

2 -----------------------

3

4

5

6

Table 1. Number of elementary school subjects included in the Monongalia County sample


and number on whom complete records were obtained, by sex and grade


Grade Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls


Number with Number in sample I complete records 

Total elementary school sample 736 368 

Grade 1----------------------------,-.,--- 116 60 114 54 60 

Grade 2----------------------------- 117 111 

Grade 3-----------------------------~:----- 121 2? 113 ;: % 

Grade 4------------------------------------ 127 54 121 71 50 

Grade 5------------------------------------ 111 59 105 50 

Grade 6------------------------------------ 144 79 119 54 2: 

Table 2.	 Number of secondary school subjects included in the Monongalia County sample 

and number on whom complete records were obtained, by sex and age 

Grade Total I Boys Girls 

II I EIiEEIE 

Number with
 Number in sample complete records


Total secondary school sample 706 355 351 633 314 I 319 

Total junior high 376 192 184 330 166 I 164 

Grade 7------------------------------------ 125 53 111 61 50 

Grade 8------------------------------------ 117 54 101 51 50 

Grade 9------------------------------------ 134 77 118 54 64 

Total senior high 330 167 303 

Grade 10----------------------------------- 109 55


Grade 11----------------------------------- 110 54 1:;


Grade 12----------------------------------- 111 58 103


Table 3. Number of elementary school subiects in the control samDle and number on whom 

complete records wer; obtained, ky sex, grade, and locat;on of sample 

Grade and location Total Boys Girls


~ 

Number with
 Number in sample complete records


Total elementary school sample 680 338 342 6271[ 317 310 

Grade (Wisconsin)------------------------ 103 103 

Grade (California) 120 104 

Grade (Colorado)------------------------- 113 104 

Grade (Wisconsin)------------------------ 104 

Grade (California)----------------------- 123 

Grade (Colorado)------------------------- 117 

3

periphery of the metropolitan area and thus are 

assumed to be reasonably comparable in socioeconomic distribution to the other samples. 

Control sample B included the second, fifth, 

eighth, and eleventh grades and was collected 

in Duarte, a suburban semirural schd district 

in Los Angeles County, Calif. This district also 

had some similarities with the main sample in 

that it had a small sprinkling of rural and minority group children. Here, also, data were collected 

in two elementary schools, one junior high, and one 

senior high school. 

Control sample C, finally, covered the third, 

sixth, ninth, and twelfth grades and was collected 

in Fort Collins, Colo, Fort Collins is a college 

town close to rural and mining areas with a 

metropolitan area similar in size to the Monongalia County situation. Again two elementary 

schools, a junior high, and a senior high school 

furnished the subjects for this sample. 

Tables 3 and 4 give the number of elementary 

and secondary school children in the control 

sample, and table 5 gives, by geographic location, 

the number of children who were included in the 

sample and for whom complete records are 

available. 

Socioeconomic Characteristics 

Parents’ occupations and students’ ability 

levels were determined in order to ascertain 

whether the sample selected actually covered 

a representative range and to permit appropriate 

statistical adjustment if necessary. Occupational 

level for the head of household was coded according to the following scheme: 

O - unskilled Iaborersl 

1- domestic laborers (including gardeners 

and janitors) 

2- operators (factory, and similar work 

requiring no special training) 

3- service occupations (including mailmen, 

service station employees, dry cleaners, 

etc., all requiring only limited training)l 

lspecial cases-disabled and unemployed workers were 

classified as O, retired workers as 3, undergraduate students 

as 7,and graduate students as level 8. 

4- protective occupations (policemen, firemen, guards, soldiers; however, sergeants were classified as 6 and commissioned officers as 8) 

5- craftsmen (including all trades requiring 

an apprenticeship or formal training) 

6- clerical and sales (excluding news vendors, grocery checkers, dime store 

clerks, who were classified as 3) 

7- managerial and proprietors (including 

independent farmer-operators; tenant 

farmers and farm lalmrers, however, 

come under classifications 1 and O, respectively)l 

8- semiprofessional (including most occupations requiring college training but 

not more than 2 years of graduate work) 1 

9- professional (all occupations requiring 

2 or more years of graduate work, 

including lawyers, social workers, all 

college instructors, and school administrators. Teachers and nurses would ordinarily be classified in level 8 unless they 

have administrative positions) 

The scheme used is a modification of the major 

headings used in the 1950 census. It was first 

used in Measuring Behavioral Rigidity: A Factorial Investigation of Some Tests of Rigid Behavior (K. Warner Schaie, unpublished M.A. 

thesis, University of Washington, 1953). 

The distribution of parents’ occupations for 

the subjects included in the Monongalia County 

elementary school sample is given in table 6. 

It may be seen that the distribution was quite 

uniform throughout the six grades included in 

this sample and would seem to be reasonably 

representative of the socioeconomic structure 

of the local community. Table 7 gives a similar 

distribution for the Monongalia County secondary 

school sample. The distribution again was quite 

uniform throughout the six grades examined. 

There was, however, some underrepresentation 

at the upper level due to the fact that the area 

where most university people live was avoided. 

Tables 8 and 9 give the socioeconomic characteristics of the control samples. The distribution 

for the elementary school samples was similar 

to that obtained in Monongalia County. The 

4 
--------

-----------------

---------------------

--------------------------------- -----------------------------------

----------------------------------

---------

----------------------------------

---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Table 4. Number of secondary school subjects in the control sample and number on whom


complete records were obtained, by sex, grade, and location of sample


Grade and location Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls


Number with Number in sample I complete records 

Total secondary school sample


Total junior high ----

Grade 7 (Wisconsin)------------------------

JQ--ll-=-

104 

=t=lI=t=

Grade 8 (California)----------------------- 128 :; 

Grade 9 (Colorado)------------------------- 279 156 

Total senior high---------------------- 280 II 130


Grade 10 (Wisconsin)-----------------------


Grade 11 (California)----------------------


Grade 12 (Colorado)------------------------m


Table 5. Number of subjects in the control samples and number on whom complete records


w&e obtained, by sex and-location of sample


Location Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls


Number with
 Number in sample complete records


I


Combined samples 2,913 1,463 1,450 2,539


Wisconsin 

Total control sample------------------- 1,471 740 731 1,223 

California 477 234 243 421 

Colorado 580 303 277 393 Rm414 203 211 409

Total Monongalia County sample 1,442 723 719 1,316 I 

209 212 

196 197 

203 206 

656 I 660


Table 6. Number of elementary school subjects in the Monongalia County samples, by


grade of subject and occupational level of parent


Grade of subject


Occupational level of parent


Total 1 2 3 4 5 6


Number of subjects


O-Unskilled laborers 61 18 9 11 16 5 

l-Domestic laborers


2-Operatives


3-Service occupations


4-Protective occupations


5-Craftsmen


6-Clerical and sales


7-Managerialand proprietors


8-Semiprofessional


9-Professional


24 5 4 2 2 

: 10 

1:; 18 2; 1% 2; 17 

1% 1: 2? 2: 2; 22 

80 15 18 11 

100 18 1? 17 15 :: 

63 12 8 12 14 10 

39 8 7 6 4 8 — — — 

5 
---------------------------------

---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------------

------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

---------------------------------

---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------

----------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------

------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Table 7. Number	 of secondary school subjects in the Monongali.aCounty samples, by


grade of subject and occupational level of parent


Grade of subject 

Occupational level of parent 

Total 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Number of subjects


O-Unskilled laborers


I-Domestic laborers


2-Operatives


3-Service occupations


4-Protective occupations


5-Craftsmen


6-Clerical and sales


7-Managerialand proprietors


8-Semiprofessional


9-Professional


19 17 19 

9 5 9 

2 

1; 22 li 

2: 3; 

10 

: 10 

6 2 

1 

secondaryschoolsamples in thecontrolgroup,


however, tendedto have highersocioeconomic


levels,possiblysuggestingdifferent
patterns


of high schoolattrition.
 This was particularly


noteworthyforthe Coloradosamples.The rural


portions oftheColoradosampleswerelikely
 tobe


childrenof farm laborersforwhom highschool


dropoutwouldbe higherthanfortheWestVirginia


children. Thisfactorresulted
inahigheraverage


socioeconomic levelforthechildren
 whoremained


intheColoradosamples.


. 

General Ability Level 

The distribution ofgeneralability
 inthesam­


pieswas studied by determining
thescoreonthe


most recentgroupintelligence
 testwhicha given


childhad taken.This meant thatscoreswere


usedon testswhichhad beengivenanywhere
from


3 months to 2 years priorto thepresentstudy


and thatseveraldifferent
estsor testforms


might have beenutilized.
 Most scores,however,


were from theCalifornia
MentalMaturityTest


Table 8. Number of elementary school subjects in the control samples, by grade of sub­


ject and occupational level of parent


Grade of subject 

Occupational level of parent 

Tots1 1 2 3 4 5 6 

O-Unskilled laborers


l-Domestic laborers


2-Operatives
 -


3-Service occupations -.------


4-Protective occupations


5-Craftsmen-----..--


6-Clerical and sales


7-Managerialand proprietors


8-Semiprofessional


9-Rofessional


Number of subjects


110 27 11 

7 2 

i 

1:; 10 2: 

1:; 2? 2: 

57 13 11 

73 10 

71 10 1; 

22 2 2 . — 

15


i


16


2?


1:


12


14


6 
---------------------------------

---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

-----------------------------

------------------------------------

Table 9. Number of secondary school subjects in the control samples, by grade of sub­


ject and occupational level of parent


Grade of subject 

Occupational level of parent 

Total 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Number o subjects


O-Unskilled laborers


l-Domestic laborers


2-Operatives


3-Service occupations


4-Protective occupations


5-Craftsmen


6-Clerical and salea


7-Managerialand propri,etors


8-Semiprofessional


9-Professional


10 11 13 14 

12 

: 

25 3: 1: 2:


2; 1: 1; 2A 

12 13 11 10 

14 18 23 16 

9 9142


1 11 4 ­


and theOtisGroup Intelligence
 Tsts.Because


of the varietyof intelligence
 tstswhich were


used,itwas decidedthatonlygrossclassifica­


tionswere inorder.Ability
levelsweretherefore


recordedon a 7-pointscale.Assuming thatthe


testsused allhad a standarddeviation
of 15


points,theintervals
fortbe7-pointscalewere


setat intervals
comparableto the descriptions


being used for the interpretation
 of individual


— 1


intelligence
 tests.The meaning of the ability


levelsusedwas as follows:


1 -mentally defective(IQ of 70 or below)


2- borderline
(IQof71t080)


3- dullnormal(IQof81t090)


4-average (IQof91tol10)


5 -brightnormal (IQoflllto 120)


6- superior(IQof121to 130)


7-very superior(IQ of 131 and above)


Table 10. Number of subjectsinthe Monongali.aCounty sample,by ability level and grade


Ability level (IQ)


Grade 

70 131
 71- 81- 91- 111- 121- Or


b?low 80 90 110 120 130 above 

Total---------------------------------


Grade 3-------------------------------------


Grade 4-------------------------------------


Grade 5-------------------------------------


Grade 6-------------------------------------


Grade 7-------------------------------------


Grade 8.--------


Grade 9-------------------------------------


Grade 10------------------------------------


Grade 11


Grade 12------------------------------------


Number of subjects 

21 43 125 577 236 15 

7

- - - -- -- - -- -- - - -- -- - --- - - -- -- - - --

------------------------------

--------------------------------

-------------------------------

- - - - - --- -- -- - - - - -- -- -- --- --- - --- - - --

------------------------------------- -- - - - -- - ----- -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- - - -- -- -- - -- -- - - -- --- -- - - - - - --- ---- - -- -- - - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- --

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - --

Table 11. Number of subjects in	 the control samples, by ability level, location of 

sample, and grade 

Ability level (IQ) 

Location and grade 70 

b%ow ~ 

Number of subjects 

Total - 1 25 582 318 172 44 _ 

California 2 + 245 75 26 8

Colorado 1 19 8 164 103 79 24 

Wisconsin 4 15 173 140 67 12 

Grade . 

Grade L----------------------------------- :; 16 

Grade 

Grade :-------------------------------------

31 

30 

: 

15 

Grade 5- ---- 24 9 

Grade 6- - - -- 1 23 32 

Grade - 33 22 

Grade ;-------------------------------------

Grade 9- - -- - - - - - - - - - - . -- :! 2: 

Grade 10------------------------------------ 36 14 

Grade 11------------------------------------ 13 

Grade 12 16 12 

—. 

The distribution of general intellectual ability 

for the Monongalia County samples is reported 

in table 10 separately for each grade and for all 

grades combined. However,noabilityscoreswere 

available for the Morgantown samples ingradesl 

and 2. Similar data for the control samples are 

given in table 11. A basically symmetric distribution extending to both extremes was obtained 

for the Monongalia Countysamples ,althoughthere 

was some upward skewingduetogreaterinclusion 

of children from highersocioeconomiclevels than 

had originally been anticipated. This skewingwas 

even more pronounced for the control samples in 

whose school districts policy decision leads to 

assignment of children of low ability to special 

classes both earlier and more systematically 

thanis thecaseinMonongaliaCounty. Theskewing 

was most pronounced for the Colorado samples 

and least pronounced in the Wisconsin samples. 

The distribution of children in the California 

samples was fairly similar to that found in 

8 

Monongalia County. Patterns across grades were 

fairly uniform within each geographical area. 

While these samples arecertainly not exact 

replication of the distribution of talent within 

the population, they would seem to be broadly 

representative of typical school populations; thus 

they meet the sampling requirements set forthin 

the introduction to this report. 

TEST INSTRUMENTS 

Wide Range Achievement Test 

The principal instrument used for this study 

was, ofcourse, the1963revision of the Wide Range 

Achievement Test, for which validity data were 

to be obtained. Because of the purpose of this 

study, the parts of the WRAT administered were 

confined to the ones included in the Health Examination Survey, i.e., the Reading and Arithmetic sections. Two levels are available for each 
of these sections in the 1963 revision of the 

WRAT. One is designed for primary school children and the other for secondary school children. 

In this study one or the other form was used, 

depending on the appropriate grade level. 

The Arithmetic section of the Wide Range 

Achievement Test consists of a series of written 

arithmetic problems ranging from simple addition 

and subtraction through algebraic problems. Although defined as a timed test, it is a power 

test in the sense that the outside time limit 

of 10 minutes amply permits the students to work 

up to the maximum level of their arithmetic skills. 

The Reacting section of the test consists of a 

list of words ranking from very simple ones 

such as “cat, “ “go,” and “in” to complicated ones 

such as “belligerent” and “occurrence.” It is 

assumed that the student who fails to recognize 

a given word is likely to mispronounce it also. 

The test, nevertheless, is not one of pronunciation 

or diction, and speech defects or colloquial usages 

are not penalized. For students at the very low 

level of ability the Arithmetic section contains 

an oral part and the Reading section contains 

a preword part involving letter recognition. 

The criterion measures used were the group 

achievement tests. These tests were the Stanford 

Achievement Tests in the appropriate form, depending on the grade level, for grades 1 through 9 

and the Metropolitan Achievement Test for grades 

10 through 12. Each of these group achievement 

test batteries contains subtests which are directly 

pertinent as validating criteria for the WRAT. 

In addition, they contain other subtests covering 

school performance, which is less directly related 

to reading or arithmetic. In designing this study 

it was required that certain tests of immediate 

relevance as criterion variables be routinely 

administered, while the other subtests could be 

administered at the discretion of the participating schools. As a result the minimal amount 

of required data is reported at all grade levels 

while additional, or complete, data on the criterion 

batteries vary from one grade to the next, depending upon the discretion of the schools. 

Stanford Achievement Test 

The specific forms of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) which were used are as follows: 

Primary I, Form W, for grade 1; Primary 11, 

Form W, for grades 2 and 3; Intermediate I, 

Form W, for grade 4; Intermediate, Form J, for 

grades 5 and 6; and Advanced, Form Km, for 

grades 7, 8, and 9. Not all SAT forms have the 

same number of subtests. Thus, six subjects 

are covered at the first grade level, eight at 

the second and the third grade levels, ten at the 

fourth grade level, and nine at the fifth to ninth 

grade levels. The tabulations for data relating to 

SAT have been arranged to give maximum comparability from one grade level to the next. 

Missing data indicate subjects for which no SAT 

subtest was available at a given grade level 

because the particular school did not elect to 

administer the optional tests. The following 

paragraphs describe the subtests of the criterion 

batteries and their contents. 

Two SAT subtests are diyectly yelevant criterion variables for the Reading part of the WRAT: 

WoYdMeaning or Vocabulary (graaes 1-9). — 

The Word Meaning, or Vocabulary, test 

employs a multiple choice type of item in 

which the pupil is required to select the 

proper answer for a given stimulus word 

from a series of three or four alternatives. 

This is essentially a word recognition test. 

Pamgvaph Meaning (gYades 1-9) .—The Paragraph Meaning test consists of a series of 

paragraphs, graduated in difficulty, from 

each of which two or more words have been 

omitted. The pupil’s task is to demonstrate 

his comprehension of the paragraph by selecting the proper word for each omission 

from the choices that are given. 

Four other subtests are useful as criteria 

for the Reading part of the WRAT because, 

theoretically, they are relatea to reading. These 

are the following: 

Spelling (graues 1-9) .—The Spelling test consists of multiple choice questions in which 

the pupil chooses the correct spelling from 

among three possible spellings or marks 

“rig” if the correct spelling is not given. 

WoYa Study Skills (graaes 1-4). —The Word 

Study Skills subtest contains various combinations of auditory perception of beginning and ending sounds, phonics, and phono9 
grams. For the beginning and ending sounds 

the pupil must match a word from a multiple choice selection matching the beginning 

or ending sound read by the teacher. The 

phonics involve selecting a written word 

which is the same as one he hears read by 

the teacher, and the phonogram requires 

matching a word he hears with a rhyming 

one which he reads. 

Language (grades 2-5; 7-9).—This is an 

exercise in capitalization, punctuation, sentence sense, and language usage, with a 

few additional items of grammar. In all 

items a correct and an incorrect, or much 

less acceptable, usage are presented as 

options. 

WoYa Reauing (grade 1) .—Pupils are required to look at a picture and then select 

the appropriate word from a multiple choice 

set. This subtest is designed to measure 

skills to analyze and identify words out of 

context. 

The following three tests are used as the 

principal criterion variables Yelated to the 

Arithmetic portion of the WRA% 

Arithmetic Concepts and Reasoning (gyades 

1-9) .—The Arithmetic Concepts and Reasoning tests measure reasoning with problems 

taken from life experience, with the reading 

vocabulary being kept much below the problem-solving level being measured. Also 

tested here is the informational background 

of pupils and their understanding of the 

numbers system. 

Arithmetic Computation (&aues 2-9) .—The 

Arithmetic Computation test measures proficiency in computational skills. The tests 

are multiple choice forms; the response 

“not given” is included as one of the choices 

in each question in order to discourage 

guessing. 

Arithmetic Application. —This test occurs 

only at the fourth grade level and is designed 

to measure application of number concepts 

to practical situations. 

Three additional criterion methods of school 

performance were included which are not azrectlv 

~elatea to the predictive variables. These are the 

following: 

Social StuUies (gyaaes 4-9). —The items in 

this test primarily measure social studies 

content or information with approximately 

equaI distribution among history, geography, 

civics, and social problems. 

Science (graaes 4-9) .—This subtest contains 

about equal proportions of items from the 

areas of life science, health and safety, 

elementary physics, and chemistry, with a 

smaller representation for the earth 

sciences and conservation. 

The form used for the second and third 

grade levels combines the above two topics 

into a Science and Social Studies Concepts 

test. 

Stuay Skills (gYades 5-9). —This subtest 

measures study tools including reading 

charts, graphs, and tables; map reading; and 

using the dictionary. 

Metropolitan Achievement Test 

This test contains a total of 11 subtests, 

Because of the time factors involved, only 7 

of the 11 subtests were given routinely, while 

1 or more of the remaining tests were given 

in some of the grade samples, The five criterion 

variables thought to be most relevant (Reading, 

Spelling, Language, Mathematical Computation 

and Concepts, and Mathematical Analysis and 

Problem Solving) were administered in all 

instances. 

One of the Metropolitan subtests, Reading, is 

a direct criterion for the WRAT Reading test: 

Reading. —This test consists of four reading 

selections. The student’s reading comprehension is assessed by presenting him with 

multiple choice questions on content and word 

meaning. 

Three other subtests are in~irectly relevant 

as criteria for the WRAT Reading test: 

SPei~ing. —This test consists of a number of 

sentences, each containing one underlined 

term. The student has to decide whether the 

term is spelled correctly. 

10 
I 

Language. —This test covers punctuation and 

I	 capitalization, recognizing correct word 

uses, and understanding correct word usage, 

as well as sentence structure. 

Language Stuay Skills. —This is a test of the 

student’s ability to use a dictionary and to 

identify appropriate sources of information. 

The following two tests serve as cviteyia 

for the WRAT Arithmetic Test: 

Mathematical Computation ana Concepts. — 

This is a series of arithmetic problems comparable with those on the WRAT. However, 

answers are provided in multiple choice 

form and the procedure of solution may 

introduce a recognition element. 

Mathematical Analysis and Problem Solving. —This is a set of somewhat more complex problems expressed in language form. 

They require the student to identify the problem as well as to select the correct solution 

from the set of multiple choice answers. 

The remaining five Metropolitan Achievement subtests are not diyectly related to the 

WRAT: 

Social Stuaies Information. —These are multiple ‘choice questions covering history, 

civics, and geography. 

Social Stuaies Study SkilLs. —This subtest 

measures ability to read and interpret maps, 

tables, graphs, and charts and also assesses 

the student’s ability to draw inferences from 

such data. 

Social Stuaies vocabu~ayy. —This is a multiple choice test of the student’s knowledge of 

terms (taken from newspapers, magazines, 

and school publications) relating to social 

science studies material encountered in and 

out of the classroom. 

Scientific Concepts anct Unaen9tanaing. —This 

is a measure of the student’s science vocabulary and of his comprehension of printed 

scientific material of the kind covered in 

high school science courses. 

Science Information. —This consists of multiple choice questions covering a broad area 

of the physical and biological sciences. 

EXAMINATION PROCEDURE 

The criterion achievement battery was administered by classroom teachers in the conventional manner in order to replicate the normal 

school use of achievement tests. To gain further 

assurance of normal administration, the services 

of the public school testing director were obtained to direct the group achievement test administration. In some instances the achievement 

tests were administered in a single day, but at 

other times 2 days were required. 

In order to replicate the examination procedure used on the Health Examination Survey, 

the WRAT was administered individually. Examiners were classroom teachers from the participating schools who had been specially trained in 

WRAT administration. Although, for convenience 

and economy, children were examined by classroom teachers from their own schools, in no case 

was a child examined by his own teacher. 

Each sample child was given the WRAT during 

one of two programed times (1) during the hour 

before the start of the day’s classes or (2) 

during the hour immediately after the end of the 

day’s classes. Children were randomly distributed 

between these two testing times. A systematic 

surveillance of’ the Reading test was effected by 

tape recording selected testing sessions. 

Table 12 gives the number of examiners used 

in each grade for the Monongalia County samples 

and the control samples. Almost all examiners 

gave WRAT’S to children in all grade levels of the 

school in which they served as examiners. Differences in numbers of examiners at the secondary 

school level between the Monongalia County and 

control samples occurred because only teachers 

were used as examiners in the Monongalia County 

sample while graduate students in psychology were 

hired to supplement the examining staff in the 

control samples. 

The teachers and other examiners were 

provided with a copy of the administration instructions lifted verbatim from the WRAT manual 

(see Appendixes I and II). In addition a training 

11

---------------------------------

-- -- - - - - -- - - --- - ---- - --- - - - - - --

-------------------------------

-----------------------------

Table 12. Number of examiners administering the WRATsubtests in the Monongalia 

County samples and in the control sampies,-by grade 

Mo;::w;ia control Grade 

samples samples 

Number of examiners 

Grade 1------------

Grade 2------------

Grade 3------------

Grade 4------------

Grade 5------------

Grade 6------------

Grade 7------------

Grade 8------------

Grade 9------------

Grade 10-----------

Grade 11-----------

Grade 12-----------

session wasconducted foreachgroup ofexaminers 

to insure uniform testing procedures. The examiners were instructed to serve primarily as 

recorders of the pupils’ responses. They were 

not expected to do any test scoring. 

To insure uniformity inscoringandreporting 

of results, all tests were scored by research 

personnel. Achievement tests were machine 

scored directly from the students’ answer sheets 

and then punched on IBM cards for analysis. Al’ 

WRAT’s were scored according to instructions ir 

the manual, and Jastak’s norms were used toobtaingrade level scores. Reliabilityofscoringwas 

spot checked and is reported in the following 

section. 

RELIABILITY OF SCORING 

PROCEDURE 

The reliability of scores on the Reading 

section of the WRAT may have been seriously 

affected by three sources oftechnical error. The 

first of these was the failure of the examiner 

to record accurately whether the child correctly 

or incorrectly pronounced a given word. The 

second source of error was the scorers’ variability in interpreting the marks used by the 

examiners to recordthechildren’sperformances. 

A third possible source of error arose from the 

failure of the scorer to follow instructions todisregard correct responses made after 12 consecutive failures. 

The first type of error was investigated by 

checking tape recordings of the Reading examination. Disagreements with the examiners appeared to be largely a matter of accepting localisms in pronunciation. The seriousness of this 

problem is underscored by the fact that for a 

sample of 30 records, a reviewer who was 

unfamiliar with local speech patterns obtained a 

Table 13. Number of scoring errors made in processing WRATArithmetic and Reading 

tests, by sample 

Ari.thmet-ic Reading 

Number of errors Mononga lia Control Monongakia Control 

sample sample sample sample 

(N=72) (N=72) (N=72) (N=72) 

No error 7: 68 62 70 

One error - 4 7 2 

Two errors 2 

Three errors 1 -

NOTES: Average scoring error per record: Arithmetic=O.035 points; Reading=O.111

points. 

N—number.


12 
---

---

---

---

---

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Table 14. Means and standard deviations on selected background data...- bv grade for the


Monongalia County elementary. school ~am .es

Daya
 Occupa- between Age at Grade level
 tional Abili,ty individual time of at time of


Grade 

level of leve1 and group group test group test
 parent tests


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


z


Grade (N=l14)------- 4.69 2.84 5.00 9.26 6.98 0.36 1.80 0.01 

Grade N-lll)------- 4.70 2.45 1.67 8.61 8.08 0.47 2.80 0.00 

Grade [N=l13)------- 4.95 2.55 4.23 1.00 44.80 ;.;; 9.05 0.45 3.80 0.00 

Grade (N=121)------- 4.65 2.53 4,32 1.05 3.45 10.17 0.56 4.80 0.00 

Grade (N=105)------- ;.:; 2.29 4.08 0.97 8.32 5:19 11.13 0.67 5.80 0.01 

Grade (N=l19)------- . 2.32 4.41 0.93 34.77 5.15 12.00 0.65 6.80 0.00 

Combined rades


2 and 3 ?N=224)------ 4.83 2.50 23.42 22.59 8.57 0.67 3.30 0.50


Combined rades


5 and 6 fN=224)------ 4.97 2.32 4.25 0.96 27.69 18.91 11.59 0.79 6.33 0.50


NOTE: S.D.—standard deviation; N—number.


rho of .60withlocalexaminerdecisions.
 Prac­


tically alldisagreements
 ,however,wereresolved


infavoroftheexaminers‘scoringwhenallowance


was made forlocalisms.


The othertwo error sourceswere investi-


gatedby drawinga random sampleoftherecords


of threeboys and threegirlsfrom each grade


Ievelandrescoringtheserecords.Table13gives


the frequencydistributionf discrepancies
and


suggeststhatscoringerrorshave little
 effect


on dataanalysis.


Table 15. Means and standard deviations on selected background data,..­ by grade for the


elementary school control sampl~s


Days
 Occupa- between Age at Grade level
 tion 1 Ability individual time of at time of


Grade 

level of leve1 and group group test group test
 parent tests


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 

Grade (N=103)------ 4.18 

Grade (N=104)------ 4.06 

2.82 

2.20 

4.73 

4.30 

0.77 

0.90 

-1.63 

9.78 

8.70 

13.98 

6.95 

8.03 

0.26 

0.37 

1.87 

2.86 

0.05 

0.05 

Grade (N=104)------ 4.39 

Grade (N=lOO)------ 4.01 

Grade (N-llO)------ 4.54 

2.85 

2.88 

2.50 

4,44 

4.82 

4.25 

0.70 

1.11 

1.01 

0.99 

12.77 

9,95 

3.45 

6.30 

8.75 

9.27 

9.97 

11.03 

0.55 

0.32 

0.40 

3.80 

4.88 

5.90 

0.00 

0.04 

0.00 

Grade (N=106)------ 5.12 2.84 5.01 1.20 -4.27 8.17 12.25 0.65 6.80 0.00 

Combined grades 

2 and 3 (N=208)----- 4.23 2.55 4.37 0.81 4.39 11.51 8.65 0.78 3.33 0.47 

Combined radea 

5 and 6 7N=216)----- 4.82 2.69 4.63 1.17 2.97 11.06 11.63 0.82 6.34 0.45 

NOTE: S.D.—standard deviation; N—number.


13

Il. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDY


BACKGROUND DATA 

The subjects for the Monongalia County 

sample for the elementary school study were 

obtained by the exhaustive testing of pupils 

in all six grades of three primary grade schools. 

These included one school in the central residential area, another in a predominantly middleclass area, and a third in a lower-class, semirural area. These schools were chosen in order 

to maximize the likelihood of obtaining a reasonably representative selection of pupils from the 

population being studied. Table 14 shows that 

the desired results were approximated; that is, 

on ability and socioeconomic indices the population was close to, or slightly above, average. 

Table 14 also includes data on the mean 

number of days that elapsed between the individual 

and group tests, the mean age of the students 

at the time the group test was administered, 

and the grade level at the time of the group 

testing. Intervals between individual and group 

tests for grades 3 and 6 are considerably longer 

than for the other grades. This may be accounted 

for by the fact that group test data for these 

children were obtained from a school-system 

wide testing program which was conducted approximately a month prior to the data collection 

for the present study. 

Table 15 contains similar data on the control samples used in the elementary study. Comparison of tables 14 and 15 shows that the children 

in the control sample had parents of slightly 

lower socioeconomic status but that they averaged 

slightly higher on group tests of general ability. 

Mean age at the time of testing for the control 

samples was within a maximum of 3 months of the 

Monongalia County samples. The grade levels 

at the time the group tests were given were very 

close for the two samples, with a maximum 

discrepancy of a tenth of a grade level (or 1 

month of class time). The matching for the control samples is probably as good as can be hoped 

for without census-type sampling procedures. 

Differences in general ability level need, however, 

be kept in mind when considering discrepancies 

between the principal and control samples. 

ADEQUACY OF GRADE LEVEL 

PLACEMENT 

Tables 16 and 17 give the means and standard 

deviations for the entire population of WRAT 

raw scores and tables 18 and 19 give similar 

data for the grade level scores. Tables 18 and 19 

show that except for the Arithmetic scores of the 

second and the fifth graders in the control sample, 

all subjects obtained WRAT scores somewhat 

above the actual grade levels of the class at the 

time the test was administered. 

WRAT score means for the control and Monongalia samples for the elementary school study 

differed up to one grade level for the Reading 

section and up to approximately one-half grade 

level for the Arithmetic section and for the grade 

level estimate obtained by combining scores on 

Reading and Arithmetic. All differences are significant at the 1-percent level of confidence, except for the Reading section in grades 4 and 5 and 

for the combined Reading and Arithmetic score 

in grade 3. 

The lower performance of the Monongalia 

first grade sample may have been due to the 

absence of kindergarten classes. For the other 

grades, these data imply that the Colorado and 

Wisconsin samples demonstrated significantly 

higher skills in Reading than did the Monongalia 

sample. The Monongalia sample, in turn, significantly exceeded the California sample on both 

Reading and Arithmetic and the Colorado sample 

on Arithmetic alone. 

Before suggesting that the above results 

yield positive evidence of overestimation of actual 

grade placement, attention must again be called 

to Jastak’s contention that the Reading and Arithmetic grade levels, similar to age-scale-derived 

intelligence quotients, cannot be expected to show 

systematic increment with grade wise promotion 

of pupils. To do justice to the test author, it is 

necessary, therefore, to determine the magnitude 

of the discrepancies of the findings of this study 

from the values given in the manual, Unfortunately, 

Jastak does not provide means and standard deviations for the samples on which his tables of norms 

14 
-------- -------- -------- ---

-------- -------- -------- ---

Table 16. Means and standard deviations on the WRAT, by subtest and grade for the 

Monongalia County elementary school samples (raw scores) 

Arithmetic
 Arithmetic Reading + Reading


Grade


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


Grade l----------------------------------- 21.31 3.51 38.57 9.13 59.87 11.79 

Grade 2----------------------------------- 26.60 2.96 50.37 8.61 76.97 10.30 

Grade 3----------------------------------- 32.32 3.05 61.77 9.38 94.08 11.11 

Grade 4----------------------------------- 34.10 3.43 66.20 12.09 100.31 14.60 

Grade 5----------------------------------- 37.31 4.57 70.16 9.28 107.48 11.81 

Grade 6--,.----- 44.00 5.88 78.03 9.10 122.04 13.25 

Combined grades 2 and 3------------------- 29.49 4.15 56.12 10.66 85.60 13.71 

Combined grades 5 and 6------------------- 40.87 6.27 74.34 9.99 115.21 14.54 

NOTE: S.D. -standard deviation. 

are based, While a test of significance of discrepancies istherebyprecluded, itisnevertheless 

possible tomake a direct assessment ofthemagnitude of discrepancies by obtaining from Jastak’s manual the grade level equivalent tothe50th 

percentile atthe meanageofthis study’ssamples. 

Tables 20 and 21 give the magnitudes of 

discrepancies from actual grade placement and 

from Jastak’s norms. These tables also contain 

the t-ratios for the test of significance of mean 

differences between obtained WRAT grade level 

scores and actual grade placement. Actual grade 

Table 17. Means and standard deviations on the WRAT. bv subtest and grade for the 

elementary school control samples (ra; scores)


Grade


Grade l-----------------------------------

Grade 2-----------------------------------

Grade 3-----------------------------------

Grade 4-----------------------------------

Grade 5---------------------------------- - Grade 6 --------

Combined grades 2 and 3-------------------

Combined grades 5 and 6-------------------


NOTE: S.D. —standard deviation. 

Arithmetic Reading Arithmetic 

+ Reading

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


24.68 2.09 44.50 8.54 69.17 9.95 

24.70 2.30 47.69 9.87 72.30 11.17 

30.81 2.15 63.55 10.27 94.07 12.03 

34.11 3.44 71.86 10.40 105.97 12.60 

36.94 4.36 68.31 11.21 105.15 13.94 

45.07 5.73 79.09 11.77 124.16 16.38 

27.75 3.78 55.62 12.82 83.18 15.91 

40.93 6 ;50 73.60 12.69 114.48 17.91 

15 
- - - -- - -- --- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - - - --- - --- - - ----

-- --- - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -

-- - -- - - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - -- - - --- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - -

-------- -------- -------- -------- --

-------- -------- --

r 

Table 18.	 Means and standard deviations on the WRAT, by subtest and grade for the 

Monongalia County elementary school samples (grade level scores) 

Arithmetic Arithmetic Reading + Reading 

Grade 

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 

Grade 1.97 0.59 2.06 0.76 2.02 0.60 

Grade ;------------------------------------------ 3.02 0.69 3.08 1.03 3.05 0.72 

Grade 4.49 0.72 4.74 1.63 4.62 1.02 

Grade 4.91 0.77 5.70 2.31 5.30 1.43 

Grade 5- - -- - - . 5.62 1.04 6.33 2.00 5.97 1.29 

Grade 6 7.60 2.01 8.24 2.44 7.92 1.93 

Combined grades 2 and 3-------------------------- 3.76 1.02 3.92 1.60 3.84 1.18 

Combined grades 5 and 6-------------------------- 6.67 1.91 7.34 2.44 7.01 1.92 

NOTE: S.D.— standard deviation. 

2------------------------------------------

placement atthe timetheWRAT wasadministered actual grade level estimate. The adiusted method 

is obtained by adjusting the grade level at the also yields WRAT overestimates ;f grade level 

time the group test was taken bytheaverage time except for the second grade control sample and 

elapsed between the individual and group tests. for the fourth and fifth grade arithmetic scores 

Results of these comparisons suggest that on both the principal and the control samples. 

the WRAT tends to overestimate grade level Since all but the second and fourth grade 

even when Jastak’s norms are used to adjust the control samples are slightly above average in 

Table 19. Means and standard deviations on the WRAT, by subtest and grade for the 

elementary school control samples (grade level scores) 

Arithmetic Arithmeti-c Reading + Reading 

Grade 

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 

Grade 1------------------------------------------ 2.56 0.38 2.53 0.81 2.54 :.:: 

Grade 2------------------------------------------ 2.59 0.48 2.87 1.05 2.73 

Grade 3------------------------------------------ 4.13 0.59 5.10 1.87 4.61 ;:;; 

Grade 4------------------------------------------ 4.92 0.77 6.76 2.27 5.84 

Grade 5--------- 5.53 0.98 6.09 2.25 5.81 1:46 

Grade 6------------------------------------------ 7.87 1.89 8.69 2.60 8.28 2.02 

Combined grades 2 and 3-------------------------- 3.36 0.94 3.99 1.88 3.67 1.32 

Combined grades 5 and 6-------- 6.68 1.90 7.36 2.76 7.02 2,15 

Wl!JI: S.D.—standard deviation. 

16 
-----

-----------

-----------

I 

I 

! Table 20. Discrepanciesbetween observedWRAT grade level scores,actualgrade level, and Jastak’s


age norms, by subtest and grade for the Monongalia County elementary school samplea


Discrepancyfrom
 Discrepancyfrom actual grade level Jastak’s age norms


Arithmetic 

I Grade Arithmetic Reading + Arithmetic Reading Arithmetic Reading +
 Reading


D t D t D 

I 

Grade L-------------- 1-0.15 12.68 +0.24 

Grade 2-------------- +0.21 13.18 +0.27 

13.38 +0. 20 

12.75 +0.24 

13.51 

13.48 

-0.05 

-0.29 

-0.16 

-0.23 

-0.20 

-0.26 

Grade 3-------------- +0.54 17.94 +0.79 15.16 +0.57 15.94 +0.44 +0.69 +0.57 

I Grade 4-------------- +0.10 1.43 +0.79 13.76 +0.49 13.77 -0.10 +0 .69 ::.;; 

I 

Grade 5-------------- -0.21 ~2.08 +0.50 

Grade 6-------------- +0.68 3.70 +1.32 +o .14 1:::: +1.00 1;:;: -0.11 

+0.33 

+0. 10 

+0.97 +0:65 

I C~m;t&a$ grades 

------.-.---- +0.38 17.60 +0.54 15.74 +0.46 18.21 +0.08 +0.24 +0.16 

C~~k&~ grades

-------. +0.13 1.14 +0.92 16.01 +0.59 15.09 -0.17 +0.50 +0.17 

Isiwificant at the l-percent level of ccmfidence.


NOTE: D-algebraic difference;t-t-test of the significanceof the differencebetween means.


Table 21. Discrepanciesbetween observedWRAT grade level scores,actualgrade level, and Jaatak’a


age norms, by subtest and grade, for the elementaryschool control samples


. 

Discrepancyfrom
 Discrepancyfrom actual grade level Jastak’s age norms


Arithmetic
 Grade Arithmetic Reading + Arithmetic


r Reading Arithmetic Reading


Rea;ing
 r D t D t

Grade 1------------ +0,69 

Grade 2------------ -0.30 

Grade 3------------ +0. 33 

‘18.65 +0.66 

16.52 -0.02 

15.69 +1.30 

18.25 +0.67 

0.20 -0.16 

17.10 +0.81 

112.89 

1;:;; 

+0. 74 

-0.51 

+0.08 

+0.71 

-0.23 

+1.05 

+0. 72 

-0.37 

+0. 76 

Grade 4------------ +0.01 0.13 +1.85 18.15 +0. 93 14.10 +0.07 +1.91 +0.99 

Grade 5------------ -0.40 

Grade 6------------ +1.08 

14.30 +0. 13 

15.87 +1.90 

0.61 +0.12 

17.51 +1.49 1;:;: -0.37 

+0.67 

+0. 16 

+1.49 

+0. 15 

+1. 08 

C~m;~; grades 

+0.03 0.71 +0.65 15.70 +0. 33 14.58 -0.08 +0. 54 +0.22 

C~~ix&e~ grades 

+0.34 13.01 +1.02 ‘5.83 +0.68 15.67 +0. 30 +0. 98 +0. 64 

Insignificant at the l-percentlevel Of confidence. 

NOTR: D-algebraic difference;t—t-test of the significanceof the differencebetween means.


17

------

------

-------

---

------

------

-------

Table 22. Means, standard deviations, and 

discrepancies from actual grade level 

on the Stanford Achievement Teat, Form 

Primary I, by sample and subtest for 

grade 1 -

Subtest 

Word Reading-­

Paragraph 

Meaning 

Vocabulary--- - Spelling 

W$orl;udy 

ArithmeticWord Reading-­

Paragraph

Meaning 

Vocabulary----

Spelling 

W%orludy 

Artthmeti.c---­

‘Significant 

of confidence. 

Mean S.D. D t 

Mono galia County sample 

(N=114)


1.80 0.58 0.00 0.00 

1.91 0.57 +0.11 ~2.04 

2.28 1.03 +0.48 

1.95 0.54 +0.15 1:::: 

2.16 0.95 +0.36 14.04


2.08 0.61 +0.21 13.68


Wisconsin control sample 

(N=103) 

2.17 0.52 +0.30 15.88


2.15 0.59 +0.28 14.83


2.24 0.68 +0.37 ‘5.44


2.29 0.66 +0.42 16.56


2.60 1.00 +0.73 17.37


2.L2 0.48 +0.25 15.21


at the l-percent level 

NOTE: N—number; S.D.—standard devi,­

ati.on; D—algebraic difference; t—t-test 

of the significance of the difference between means. 

general ability, it is conceivable that the latter 

variable may account for the overestimation that 

occurred in the present study. Comparison of 

grade level estimates from the WRAT and the 

criterion measures will further bear on theissue 

of adequate grade placement and will reexamined 

inone of the following sections. 

PERFORMANCE ON THE SAT 

Means and standard deviations for the grade 

scores on the Stanford Achievement Test are 

reported in tables 22 through 27. Data have been 

tabulated separately for Primary Form I, used 

in the first grade; Primary Form II, used in the 

second and third grades; Intermediate Form I, 

used in the fourth grade; andIntermediate FormJ, 

administered to the fifth and sixthgradechildren. 

‘heverycase,d inferences fromactualgrade level 

attime oftest administration havebeencomputed, 

and these, along with the significance andmagnitude of the differences, are given in the abovementioned tables. Our data suggest that the 

samples used for the elementary school study 

perform at, orslightlyabove,thenormedaverages 

on the group achievement measures. There are 

some minor discrepancies betweentheMonongalia 

County and control samples, with the formergenerally scoring slightly higher inall but the first 

grade samples. 

Significantly higher than average performance was shown by all of the first graders on 

Vocabulary, Spelling, Word Study Skills, and 

Arithmetic; the Wisconsin control sample also 

scored higher on Word Reading and Paragraph 

Meaning. The second and third graders in the 

Monongalia County sample scored significantly 

above average on Science and Social Studies 

Concepts, and the third graders were also above 

average on Arithmetic Concepts. But the California second grade control sample was below 

average on all SAT variables, while the third 

grade (Colorado) control sample exceeded the 

norms for Word Meaning, Science and Social 

Studies Concepts, Spelling, Word Study Skills, 

and Language. 

Performance of the fourth grade samples 

was at the normative level except for above 

average performance on Social Studies by the 

principal Monongalia sample and significant below 

average performance on Arithmetic Computation 

by the Wisconsin Control sample. 

In graded 5 and 6 the Monongalia County 

samples attained above grade level means for 

Spelling, Social Studies, Science, and Smdy Skills, 

while the fifth grade sample had below average 

performance on Arithmetic Computation. The 

California fifth grade sample scored below 

average on all SAT subtests, while the Colorado 

sixth grade sample was significantly above normative levels on Paragraph Meaning, Spelling, 

Language, and Study Skills. 

Most of the significant discrepancies of the 

SAT from actual grade level ranged from one18

------

----------

------

Table 23. Means, standard deviations, and discrepancies from actual grade level on the Stanford


Achievement Test, Primary Form 11, by subtest for the Monongalia County samples, grades 2 and 3


Grade 2 Grade 3 :ombined grades 2 and 3 

(N=lll) (N=113) (N=224) 

Subtest 

Nean S.D. D t Mean S.D. D t Mean S.D. D t 

Word Meaning 2.73 0.75 -0.07 0.99 3.85 1.12 +0.05 0.47 3.30 1.11 0.00 0.00 

Paragraph Meaning- 2.87 0.80 +0.07 0.92 3.95 1.11 -}0.25 2.45 3.42 1.11 -1-0.12 1.82 

Science and Social 

Studies Concepts- 3.11 1.15 +0.31 12.84 4.32 1.21 +0.52 14.56 3.72 1.32 +0.42 15.32 

Spelling---------W- 2.73 0.79 -0.07 0.93 3.97 1.14 +0.17 1.57 3.36 1.16 +0. 06 ;.:; ord Study Skills- 3.02 1.46 +0.22 1.58 4.07 1.60 +0.27 1.80 3.55 1.62 +0. 25 

Language 2.83 1.04 -40.03 0.30 4.00 1.16 +0. 20 1.83 3.42 1.25 +0.12 1:64 

Arithmetic 

Computation------ 2.72 0.61 -0.08 1.38 3.72 0.65 -0.08 1.31 3.22 0.81 -0.08 1.90 

Arithmetic 

Concepts--------- 2.75 0.92 -0.05 0.57 4.20 1.20 +0. 40 13.51 3.48 1.29 +0. 18 2.47 

I 

lSi@ificant at the l-percent level Of confidence.


NOTE: N-number; S.D.— standard deviation; D-algebraic difference; t—t-test of the signifi­


cance of the difference between means.


fourth to three-fourths of a grade level. The RELATION OF THE WRAT 

discrepancies from actual grade level inthecriTO THE SAT terion must, of course, be considered inevalusting the seriousness of the deviations of the Validity coefficients describing the relation 

WRAT from actual grade level. Appropriate of the WRAT and the Stanford Achievement 

analyses of this complicating problem are re- Test have been grouped together for all grades 

ported following the discussion of the WRAT’S to permit easier comparison. The reader must 

relation to the criterion measures. be reminded again that, due to the age levelof 

Table 24. Means, standard deviations, and discrepancies from actual grade level on the Stanford 

Achievement Test, Primary Form II, by subtest for the California and Colorado control samples, 

grades 2 and 3 

Grade 2 Grade 3 ICombined grades 2 and 3 

(N=104) (N=104) rN=208) 

Subtest 

Mean S.D. D t Mean S.D. D t Mean S.D. D t

--1--

Word Meaning 2.36 0.60 -0.50 18.62 4.15 1.3s +0.35 12.74 3.26 1.35 -0.07 0.92 

Paragraph Meaning- 2.40 0.66 -0.46 17.19 4.10 1.34 +0. 25 1.91 3.25 1.36 -0.08 1.03 

Science and Social + 

Studies Concepts- 2.62 0.73 -0.44 16.11 4.31 1.47 +0.51 13.54 3.46 1.44 +0. 13 1.53 

Spelling---------- 2.58 0.87 -0.28 13.33 4.22 1.18 +0.42 13.62 3.40 1.32 +0.07 0.93 

Word Study Skills- 2.40 0.95 -0.46 14,95 4.61 1.85 +0.81 14.48 3.50 1.84 +0. 17 1.53 

Language---------- 2.54 0.64 -0.42 16.77 4.26 1.54 +0.46 13.05 3.40 1.46 +0.07 0.81 

Arithmetic 

Computation------ 2.30 0.50 -0.56 111.67 3.94 0.77 +0. 14 1.87 3.12 1.04 -0.21 14.20 

Arithmetic 

Concepts---------T2.30 0.69i -0.56 18.36 3.97 1.32 +0.17 1.32 3.13 1.34 -0.20 12.60 I 

I.Significantat the l-percent level of confidence.


NOTE: N-number; S.D.-standard deviation; D-algebraic difference; t-t-test of the signific­ ance of the difference between means. 

19

--------------------- ---------------- ------------------------- ---------------- -------------------------

--------------

---------- ------------------- --------------------------

------ ----------

----------

--------

------

----------- ------

Table 25. Means, standard deviations, and discrepancies from actual grade level on the


Stanford Achievement Test, IntermediateForm I, by sample and subtest for grade 4


Monongali.aCounty sample Wisconsin control sample


(N=121) (N=1OO)


Subtest


Mean S.D. D t Mean S.D. D t 

Word Meaning 4.99 1.47 +0.19 1.42 5.02 1.52 +0.14 0.92 

Para raph Meaning 5.16 1.89 +0.36 2.09 5.14 1.83 +0.26 1.43 

Spelf“mg 5.00 1.69 +0.20 1.30 4.98 1.54 +0.10 0.65 

Word Study Skills 4.61 1.87 -0.19 1.12 5.25 1.88 +0.37 1.97 

Language 4.91 1.92 +0.11 0.63 4.61 1.74 -0.27 11.55 

Arithmetic Computati~----------- 4.86 0.93 +0.06 0.71 4.16 0.69 -0.62 8.98 

Arithmetic Concepts 5.03 1.49 +0.23 1.70 5.14 1.54 +0.26 1.69 

Arithmetic Applications 4.84 1.54 +0.04 4.83 1.35 -0.05 0,37 

Social Studies 5.34 1.46 +0.54 1::;; 5.15 1.59 +0.27 1.71 

Science 5.14 1.69 +0.34 2.21 5.21 1.72 +0.33 1.93


lSignif3_cant
at the l-percent level of confidence.


NOTE: N-number; S.D.—standard deviation; D—algebraic difference t—t-test of


the significance of the difference between


the children involved, notallcriterion
 measures


are available
at allages.Dashesinthecolumns


of tablesindicatesuch missing data.Validity


coefficients are givenseparately
foreachgrade


and for the combined secondand thirdgrades


and combined fourthand fifth
grades.Table 28


means.


liststheappropriate . . validity measures relating


theSAT grade scoresto thegradelevelscores 

on the VIRAT Arithmetic section.
 Valuesforthe

relationships
 with the most pertinentcriteria


have been boxed.Coefficients
 fortheindividual


grade samples (for ArithmeticConcepts and


Table 26. Means, standarddeviations,and discrepancies from actual grade level on the Stanford


k~i~vemant Test, Intermediate Form J, by subtest for the MonongaliaCounty samPles,grades 5


I Grade 5 Grade 6 Combined grades 5 and 6 

(N-105) (N=119) (N=224) 

Subtest 

Mean J S.D. D t klean S.D. D t Mean S.D. D t 

+ 

ParagraphMeaning- ~.;; 1.71 +0.33 1.98 7.23 2.00 +0.43 1.95 +0.38 13.04 

Word Meaning 1.53 +0.16 1.07 7.19 1.65 +0. 39 1.71 +0.29 12071 

Spelling 6:23 1.46 +0.43 13.03 7.45 1.77 +0.65 1.74 +0.55 15.05 

Langusge 5.85 2.08 +0.05 0.25 7.17 2.23 +0.37 2.26 +0.22 1.52 

Arithmetic 

Reasoning 5.56 1.20 -0.24 2.05 7.04 1.48 +0.24 1.76I 6.35 1.55 +0.02 0.22 

Arithmetic


Computation 5.37 0.97 -0.43 14.53 6.81 1.16 +0.01 6.14 1.30 -0.19 12.60


Social Studies---- 6.35 1.54 +0.55 13.67 7.51. 1.75 +0.71 6.97 1.75 +0.64 15.82


Science 6.57 1.99 +0.77 13.97 7.40 2.04 +0.60 13.21 7.01 2.06 +0.68 ‘5,04


Study Skills 6.48 1.95 +0.68 13.58 7.90 2.13 +1.10 15.64 7.23 2.17 +0.90 16.52


I 

lsieificant at the l-percentlevel Of confidence.


NOTE: N—number; S.D.—standard deviation; D—algebraic difference;t—t-test of the signifi­


cance of the differencebetweenmeans.


20

------

----------

--------

---

--- ---

--- ---

---

---

--- --- --- ---

--------

---------

-------- --- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

-----

--- --- --- ---

---

---

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--- --- ---

---

---

--- ---------

Table 27. Means, standard deviations, and discrepancies from actual grade level on the Stanford 

Achievement Test, Intermediate Form J, by aubtest for the California and Colorado control 

samples, grades 5 and 6 

Grade 5 Grade 6 lCombined grades 5 and 6


(N=11O) (N=106) (N=216)


Subtest


I Mean S.D. D t Mean S.D. D T

tMean S.D. D t 

Paragraph Meaning- 5.42 1.69 -0.48 12.98 7.23 2.07 +0.53 12.69 6,31 2.09 -0.03 0.22 

Word 

Spelling---------- . 1.59 -0.22 1.45 7.75 1.74 +0.95 g:;; ;:;: 1.96 +0. 36 1$:; 

Language 5.19 2.20 -0.71 13.38 7.37 2.16 +0.57 12.77 6.26 2.44 -0.08 0.52 

Arithmetic 

Reasoning 5.57 1.28 -0.33 12.70 6.82 1.60 +0.02 0.13 6.18 1.57 -0.16 1.62 

Arithmetic 

Meaning ;.;; 1.33 -0.13 1.03 6.76 1.81 -0.04 1.66 -0.08 

I 

I Computation------ 5.41 1.10 -0.49 14.67 6.65 1.15 -0.15 1.36 6.02 1.29 -0.32 14.10 

Social Studies---- ;.;; 1.38 -0.06 6.91 1.78 +0.11 0.65 6.37 1.68 -0.03 0.28 

Science----------- 1.93 -0.50 1;::; 6.79 2.03 -0.01 -L2.10 -0.28 2.06 

Study Skills------ 5:58 1.72 -0.32 1.96 7.74 2.00 +0.94 1:::; ;:;; 2.15 +0. 30 2.24
 I 

Insignificantat the l-percent level of confidence.


NOTE : N-number; S.D.— standard deviation; D—algebraic difference; t—t-test of the signifi­


cance of the difference between means.


Table 28. Validity coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT Arithmetic grade level scores 

with the grade level scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, by grade, sample, . . and subtest for

the elemefitary school samples 

Combined Combined


Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 grades 2 gra:; 5


Subtest and 3 

— 

M c M c M c M c M c M c TMC M c 

Word Meaning t 

or Vocabulary-- .44 .25 .47 .35 .33 .59 .60 .61 .59 .56 .64 .48 .59 .76 .67 .59 

P~ara:h -.------ .45 .55 ;:; .50 .51 .61 .59 .61 .60 .54 .58 .44 .63 .77 .62 .56 

Spelling .55 .65 .45 .36 .54 .56 .47 .46 .58 .59 .64 .62 .74 .61 .72 

W::orl;:udy 

.34 .51 .21 .&3 .39 .57 .56 .54 .44 .73 

Language .48 .30 .46 .59 .63 .59 .61 .42 .65 .67 .63 .71 .66 .66 

Word Reading---- .51 .55 

—


Arithmetic 

Concepts and 

Reasoning .61 .55 .59 .49 .64 .70 .75 .53 .78 .72 .78 .51 .76 .86 .82 .65 

M.thmetic 

Computation---- .74 .59 .64 .61 .72 .68 .63 .69 .74 .50 .82 .79 .78 .67 

Arithmetic 

Application---- .70 .63 — 1

.60 

1

Social Studies-- ..,- .52 .63 .28 .39 .52 ,70 .57 .45 .57 .59 .38 .64 .69
 Scf.ence .58 .55 .59 .59 .53 .38 .55 .53


Study Skills---- .64 .70 .71 .44 F-- .71 .65


NOTES: Social Studiee and Science were combined in a single subtest in the form used


for grades 2 and 3. 

M-Monongalia County samples; C-control samples. 

21

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--------

--------

-------- --- --- --- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--- --- ---

-----

--

---------

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--- --- --- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 29. Validity coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT Reading grade level scores 

with the grade level scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, by grade, sample, and subtest for 

the elementary school samples


Combined Combined 

Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 gra~; 2 grades 5 

and 6 

Subtest


M c M c M c M c M c M c M c M c 

tord Meaning 

u

or Vocabulary-- .68 .41 .79 .76 � 79 .75 .83 .70 .68 .79 .66 .60 .84 .84 .72 ,7L 

Paragraph 

Meaning .87 .79 .79 .71 .79 .78 .74 .71 .59 .65 .63 .48 .84 .85 .65 .64 

Spelling .76 .80 .77 .84 .78 .81 .76 .63 .64 .76 .72 .80 .84 .88 .73 .84 

ord Study


Skills--------- .64 .77 .72 .72 .71 .78 .83 .78 .74 .85


Language
 -i 

.81 

.67 .54 .72 .72 .77 .71 .67 .63 .62 .74 .77 .79 � 68 ,75 

Arithmetic


ord Reading---- 1

Reasoning .64 .45 .64 .53 .55 .71 .62 .46 .47 .60 .54 .45 .70 .79 .60 .60 

ArMunetic 

Computation-- .37 .33 .55 .54 .57 .65 .21 .47 .41 .43 .64 .71 .47 .57 

Arithmetic 

Application----

Social Studies--

Science .51 .21 .59 .51 

.54 

.63 

.68 

.62 

.68 

.68 

.66 

.64 

.72 

.68 

.67 

.54 

.53 

.46 .66 .64 .71 

.60 

.66 

.63 

Concepts and


Study Skills---- .64 .63 .61 .48 .67 .65 

NOTES: Social Studies and Science were combined in a single subtest in the form used in grades 

2 and 3. 

M-Monongali.a County samples; C-control samples. 

Reasoning, Arithmetic Computation, and Arithmetic Application) range from .59 to .78 for the 

Monongalia County samples and from .49to .72 

in the control samples. Similar coefficients for 

the combined grades range from .76 to .82 and 

from .65to .86, respectively. 

Substantial construct validity is supported, 

at least in the principal sample, by the fact 

that the most pertinent validity coefficients are 

higher than the associations with other criterion 

variables which are unrelated to the arithmetic 

tasks. There seems to be some progression in 

increased validity from the first three grades to 

the higher grades. Most likely this reflects the 

fact that the WRAT has, of necessity, fewer 

items to be administeredto children in the lower 

grades, thus producing reduced variability. 

The validity coefficients describing therelation between the Reaaing section of theWRATand 

the grade scores of the Stanford Achievement 

Test are reported in table 29. Validities for the 

most pertinent, criteria (including Word Meaning 

or Vocabulary, Paragraph Meaning, Spelling, 

Word Study Skills, Language, and Word Reading) 

are again boxed in this table. Their values range 

for the individual grades from .59 to .87 in the 

Monongalia County samples and from ,41to .84 

in the control samples. The combined grade 

samples yield validity coefficients ranging from 

.65 to .84 and from .64 to .88, respectively. Itis 

again noted that evidence for construct validity 

may be inferred from the fact that the languagerelated subtests of the SAT have higher validities 

than the arithmetic-related ones when compared 

with theWRAT Reading section. 

The validity coefficients describing the relationship between the combined Arithmetic and 

Reading grade level scores from the WRATand 

22 
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

-----

--------

--------

-----

---------

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

the grade scores from the Stanford Achievement 

Test are given in table 30. Use of the combined 

Arithmetic and Reading (A + R) score, as predicted, raises validities for the measures which 

are not specifically language or numerical ability 

related, but it does not markedly affect coefficients for the more specific measures. 

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WRAT 

AND SAT GRADE LEVEL ESTIMATES 

A set of validity coefficients does no more, 

of course, than indicate the extent to which the 

distribution of scores on a predictor variable 

conforms to, or can be linearly transformed into, 

a set of scores on a criterion variable. It does 

not in itself give information on the magnitude 

of discrepancies in estimating grade levels on the 

criterion from the predictor measure. In previous 

sections the discrepancies of the test scores from 

actual grade level at time of testing have been 

examined. These are necessarily related to the 

question, How closely do the samples conform 

to national averages? Quite independent thereof, 

and within this closed system, it is possible to 

examine the question, How well does the WRAT 

approximate the grade level estimates on the 

criterion instrument? 

Discrepancies between the grade level means 

for the most pertinent criterion variables and the 

WRAT Arithmetic section are given in table 31 

together with the t-ratios for the significance 

of these differences. It will be noted that the 

Arithmetic section of the WRAT significantly 

overestimates achievement on Arithmetic Concepts and Reasoning for the second and sixth 

grade samples as well as for the two combined 

samples. Arithmetic Computation, moreover, is 

overestimated by the WRAT at all levels except 

for the fourth grade sample. Overestimates of the 

Table 30. Validity coefficients describing the relation of the WRJIT combined Arithmetic and Read­


ing grade level scores with the grade level scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, by grade,


sample, and subtest for the elementary school samples


* 

Subtest


Word Meaning or


Vocabulary


Paragraph


Meaning


Spelling--------


W$orl;udy
 --------.


Language


Word Reading----


Arithmetic


Concepts and


Reasoning


Arithmetic


Computation----


Arithmetic


Application---S­


ocial Studies-­


Science


Study Skills----


Combined Combined 

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 grades 2 g:;~: 5 

and 3 

— — 

M c M c M c M c M c M c M c M c . — — 

,65 .40 .79 .73 .74 .77 .83 .70 .77 .79 .75 .61 .82 .87 .79 .70 

.77 .79 .76 .75 .81 .81 .75 .71 .70 .68 .70 .51 .84 .88 .72 .67 

.75 .84 .77 .83 .75 .81 .77 .63 .68 .78 .76 .81 .83 .89 .77 .85 

.57 .76 .62 .73 .70 .79 .82 .78 .69 .86 

.71 .54 .73 .75 .80 .71 .77 .63 .73 ,79 .79 .82 .75 .78 

.77 .81 

.70 .54 .74 .60 .66 .77 .71 .46 .68 .70 .75 .52 .80 .84 .79 .67


.61 .47 .66 .61 .66 .65 .41 .59 .65 .51 .79 .81 .69 .66 

;;: .62 

.66 .26 .61 .56 .68 .70 .75 .73 .51 .75 .65 

.70 .68	 .74 .72 .62 .48 .72 .70 .65 .63


.76 .71 .76 .51 .78 .71


NOTES: Social Studies and Science were combined in a single subtest in the form used for grades 

2 and 3. 

M—Monongalia County samples; C—control samples.


23 
Table 31. Discrepancies between selected criterion measures from the Stanford Achievement Test and the Arithmetic section of the WRAT, by. subtest, sample, and grade ;or . the elementary school samples 

Arithmetic Concepts 

and Reasoning Arithmetic Computation 

Grade 

Grade l--------------------

Grade 2--------------------

Grade 3--------------------

Grade 4--------------------

Grade 5--------------------

Grade 6--------------------

Combined grades 2 and 3----

Combined grades 5 and 6----

Monongalia 

county 

samples 

D t 

-0.13 2.60 

+0. 26 13.61 

+0. 14 1.63 

-0.13 1.33 

+0.05 0.68 

+0 � 44 13.46 

+0. 20 13.77 

+0. 23 13.15 

Control 

samples 

D t 

+0. 44 110.73 

-1-0.26 14,33 

+0. 16 1.63 

-0.25 1.91 

-0.07 

+1.06 1;:;; 

+0. 22 ‘4.40 

+0. 50 14.95 

Monongalia 

County 

samples 

D t 

. . . 

+0. 29 16:~(5 

+0.62 111.27 

+0. 04 

+0. 24 1;:;; 

+0.67 15.28 

+0. 44 111.OO 

+0. 44 15.50 

Control 

samples 

D t 

. . . +0. 26 1,5:~i 

+0. 19 13.1L 

-1-0.73 112.37 

+0. 09 

+1.23 1;::: 

+0. 23 *5.23 

+0.66 16.54 

Insignificant at the l-percent level of confidence. 

NOTE: D-algebraic difference; t-t-test of the si.gni,flcance of the difference between means. -

arithmetic criteria range up to a maximum of 

two-thirds of agradelevel and are replicated by 

the control sample in all instances except Arithmetic Computation ofgrade 5. 

Similar data for the Rc~ding section of the 

WRAT are presented in table 32. Here it is 

obvious that the WRAT overestimates the criterion grade levels for all but the Monongalia 

County first grade sample. WRATReadingscores 

exceed significantly theSATWord Meaningscores 

for grades 2, 3, 4, and 6. The WRAT Reading 

score significantly exceeds the SAT scores for 

Paragraph Meaning and Language at all grade 

levels and the Spelling score at all but the first 

and fifth grade levels. It is also significantly 

higher than Word Study Skills at the third and 

fourth grade levels and at the second grade in 

the control sample. The magnitude by which the 

WRAT Reading section overestimates the criterion measures of verbal skills ranges up toa 

full grade level and averages at approximately 

one-half grade levels. Again these findings are 

uniform for both samples except for Word Meaning at the first grade level. 

THE WRAT SECTIONS 

Interrelationship 

Since the WRAT is being used as a brief 

estimate of school achievement, one mustfurther 

ask the question whether combining the scores 

from the Arithmetic and Reading sectionswould 

provide amore adequatepredictor ofgradeplacement or whether either of the two sections might 

prove to be a sufficient brief estimate ofachievement level. The relevant data are presented 

in table 33, where the intercorrelations between the two sections of the WRAT are listed 

together with the correlation of each individual 

24 
--

--- ---

--- ---

--- ---

---

---

---

--------------- ---- -------------- --------------------------- ---- ---------------------- ----------- ---

---

---

---

1 

I 

I Table 32. Discrepanciesbetween selected criterionmeasures from the StanfordAchievementTest 

and the Reading section of the WRAT, by aubtest, sample,and grade for the elwentary school 

samples -

Word Meaning or Vocabulary ParagraphMeaning Spelling


Monongalia Contro1 Monongalia Control Monongalia Contro1


samples samples Grade county County county


samples samples samples samples 

-2-l-=D t D t D t D t	 I D t , 

Grade 1--- -0.24 13.38 +0.29 13.6 +0.13 13.61 +0.48 19.8 +0.09 1.92 +0.24 15.00 

Grade 2--- +0.34 15.67 +0.48 15.0 +0.24 13.94 +0.44 1600 +0.34 15:23 +0.26 14064 

Grade 3--- +0. 74 17.79 +0.95 17.7 +0. 64 16.74 +1.00 i8.6 +0. 62 16.39 +0.88 17.86 

Grade 4--- +0.70 15.60 +1. 71 110.5 +0053 13.68 +1.59 19.8 +0. 69 15.07 +1. 75 19.89 

Grade 5---

Grade 6---

+0.34 

+0.93 %;; 

+0.29 

+1.94 

2.1 

19.5’ 

+0..17 

+0. 89 1;:!; +0.64 

+1.47 

13.9 

16.2 

+0. 07 

+0. 67 1:: g 

+0.38 

+0.95 

12.71 

16.13 

Combined 

grades 2 

and 3--- to.541 19.15 to.72 llO.OI +0.42 17.00 +0073 110.2 +0.48 18.28 +0.58 18.79 

Combined 

gra:e;d5 

+0.64 ‘5.61 +1.11 18.21 +0.54 14.29 +1. 05 17.2 +0.37 13.33 +0. 66 16.23 

Word Study Skills Language


Grade Monongalia Control county 

D tD t D

samples 

D

samples 

‘w


t

$

t 

Grade 1---------------- -0.08 1.14 -0.07


Grade 2--------------------------- -KI.05 ;yj +0.24 13xi +0:;6 13X6


Grade 3------------------- +0.52 $:;; z::: +0.59 ;5.51 +0.84 16.51 

Grade 4 +1.08 9.08 -!=1.47 110:50 +0.78 5.82 +2.12 h: ;;; 

Grade 5--------- +0.45 12.78 +0.87 

Grade 6-------------------- +0.95 14.15 +1.33 17:78 

Combined grades 2 and 3--------------- +0. 29 13.72 +0.48 ‘6.76 +0.42 16.05 +0.58 17.25 

Combined grades 5 and 6--------------- T +0.70 15.51I +1.10 18.73 

&ignificant at the l-percent level of confidence.


NOTE: D—algebraic difference;t-t-test of the significanceof the differencebetween means.


section with the combined Arithmetic andReading would therefore be chosen as the appropriate descore. It is found here that from one-fourth to vice if it were deemed necessary to reduce the 

one-third of the variance of the two sections time allocated by the Health Examination Survey 

is common. The Reading sectibn, moreover, is to the achievement measures. This conclusion 

a superior estimate of the combined score and on the use of parts of the WRAT as a sufficient 

25

- - --- -- - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - -- - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - .67 

.46 

.45 

.66 

.38 

.63 

.38 

.50 

Table 33. Correlation of the Ari_thmeti,c and Reading secti,ons of the WRAT.and correlation of each section with the Arithmetic and Reading (A+ R) composite score, b 

sample and grade for the elementary school samples (raw scores and grade level scores !? 

Arithmetic 

with Ari.thmeti_c Reading 

Reading with A + R with A + R 

Grade 

M c M c M c 

Raw scores 

.61 .82 .73 

.51 .67 .66 

.57 .66 .68 

.54 .78 .72 

.52 .69 .72 

.72 .83 .87 

.75 .81 .84 

.71 .83 .87 

Grade level scores 

.57 .86 .78 

.43 .75 .70 

.59 .70 .74 

.54 .78 .72 

.58 .69 .78 

.62 .84 .86 

.73 .85 .88 

.70 .85 .89 

Grade 1.


Grade 2------------------------------------------•

Grade 3------------------------------------------•

Grade 4------------------------------------------•

Grade 5------------------------------------------


Grade 6------------------------------------------


Combined grades 2 and 3--------------------------


Combined grades 5 and 6-------------------------- 

Grade l------------------------------------------

Grade 2------------------------------------------

Grade 3------------------------------------------

Grade 4------------------------------------------ 

Grade 5------------------------------------------

Grade 6------------------------------------------

Combined grades 2 and 3--------------------------

Combined grades 5 and 6-------------------------- 

NOTE: M—Monongalia County samples; C—control 

.55 

.65 

.58 

.58 

.39 

.43 

.62 

.56 

.98 .99 

.97 .98 

.97 .96 

.98 .97 

.93 .96 

.94 .97 

.97 .98 

.94 .97 

.92 .96 

.90 .95 

.95 .98 

.98 .97 

.93 .96 

.89 .93 

.94 .97 

.91 .95 

;amples.


estimator of school achievements further supported by the data reported in tables 28 to30 

and is discussed in the preceding section. 

Relation to General Ability and 

Socioeconomic Status 

The relation of the WRAT to general ability 

and to the socioeconomic status of parents is of 

some concern in interpreting these results. 

Correlations with crude indices for the above 

variables are therefore given in table 34. Relation to parent’s occupation ranges from quite 

low to moderate, and it may be concluded that 

the WRAT improbably equallysuitable forchildren 

of different economic backgrounds. Moderate 

correlations with general ability were found, and 

they tend to increase with age. While there is 

relatively little correlation inthefirsttwogrades, 

the relationship increases to the pointofaccounting for one-fourth to one-half of the common 

variance. 

26

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 34. Correlation of the WRAT grade level scores with general ability level and 

with occupational level of parent, by subtest, sample, and grade for the elementary 

school samples 

General ability level with: Occupational level 

of parent with: 

Grade Arithmetic Arithmetic Arithmetic Read-ing + Reading Arithmetic Reading + Reading 

Grade 1----------


Grade 2----------


Grade 3----------


Grade 4----------


Grade 5----------


Grade 6----------


Combined


grades 2 and 3--


Combined


grades 5 and 6--


M c M c M c M c M c M c 

.37 .33 .36 .28 .10 .30 .24 .32 .23 

.10 .08 .10 .21 .01 .28 .07 .29 .06 

.34 .34 .59 .31 .59 .35 .21 .39 .31 .41 .32 .44 

.54 .56 .52 .51 .56 .57 .14 .30 .16 .29 .17 .32 

.47 .58 .35 .53 .45 .60 .30 .23 .21 .27 .28 .28 

.65 .52 .62 .58 .71 .62 .26 .14 .25 .34 .28 .28 

.19 .21 .22 .19 .19 .28 .28 .27 .27 

.57 .59 .51 .62 .59 .66 .28 .20 .25 .32 .29 .29 

NOTE: M—Monongalia County samples; C—control samples, 

111.THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDY 

BACKGROUND DATA 

Subjects for the junior high school studyin 

Monongalia County wereobtainedby theexhaustive 

testing of all students in the lower three grades 

of a semirural junior-senior high school andof 

U students in a suburban junior high school. A 

semirural suburban junior high school was also 

used in the three controlsamples. This particular 

selection of schools appearedto be the most feasihle one for obtaining a broad socioeconomic 

representation. Tables 7 and 9 showdistributions 

which suggest that this objective was generally 

reached. The summary givenintable35, however, 

suggests some noteworthy discrepancies in the 

junior highschool samples between theMonongalia 

County samples and the control samples. The 

Monongalia samples showed an average socioeconomic level quite characteristic for thatregion but significantly lower than the level found 

for the con?rol samples. Moreover, while the 

Monongalia samples were centered at about the 

national average for intellectual ability, it was 

found that both the Wisconsin and Colorado 

samples were above average on intellectual 

ability. These regional discrepancies must be 

noted and taken into account in the interpretation 

of findings for the junior high school samples. 

Table 35 also gives data on age at time oftest 

and actual grade level. Here the Monongalia and 

control samples were close to each other. 

27

-------------------

-------------

------

-------------

------

-------------------

Table 35. Means and	 standard deviations on selected background data, by grade and 

sample for the junior high school samples 

Grade and sample 

Total junior high 

Monongalia County 

samples

Control samples 

Grade 7 

Monongalla County samples 

Control samples 

Grade 8 

Monongali.a County 

samples 

Control samples 

Grade 9 

Monongalla County 

samples 

Control samples 

NOTE: S.D. -standard 

Occupa- Days 

tions 1 between Age at Grade level 

level of individual time of at time of 

and group group test group test parent tests 

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D, 

3.50 2.57 3.92 0.95 1.21 12.73 14.06 1.09 8.82 0.83 

4.95 2.40 4.58 1.01 -4.31 5,94 14.08 0.92 8.88 0.80 

3.87 2.65 3.86 1.03 8.40 7.09 13.02 0.66 7.80 0.02 , 5.41 2.25 4.72 0,89 -6.04 3.82 13.05 0.42 7.85 0.05 

3.12 2.63 3.92 0.93 10.73 5.42 14.08 0.78 8.80 0.01 

4.54 2.24 4.11 0.89 -9.03 4.55 14.06 0.45 8.90 0.00 

3.48 2.39 3.97 y~ -1;.;; 5.68 15.03 0.66 9.79 0.02 

4.92 2.59 4.91 . . 2.63 15.05 0.43 9.80 0.00 

deviation. 

ADEQUACY OF GRADE LEVEL 

PLACEMENT 

Meansand standard deviations for the raw 

scores on the Wide Range Achievement Test are 

reported in table 36. Similar data on grade level 

scores appear in table 37. While the elementary 

grade study showed generallyhigher performance 

for the Monongalia County samples, the reverse 

is true for the samples under consideration here. 

Particularly noteworthy for the Reading section 

of the WRAT are regional differences, which 

range from one-half of a grade level to more 

than two grade levels. 

Comparison of obtained grade level with 

actual gradelevel anddiscrepancies fromJastak’s 

normsas obtained by referringtothevalues given 

at the 50th percentile are reported in table 38. 

The regional discrepancies present some difficulties in drawingadequateconclusions. However, 

it may be noted that both the West Virginia and 

the California eighth grade samples indicate 

significant underestimation of reading level. For 

the seventh and ninth grades, however, reading 

level is underestimated for the West Virginia 

samples and overestimated for the control samples. The WRAT Arithmetic section underestimates actual grade level throughoutexceptfor the 

ninth grade Colorado control sample. 

28 

I 
---------------------

----------- ---------------------

----------- ---------------------

----------- ---------------------

I


Relating these findings to the evidence on 

general ability levels in the samples, it maybe 

concluded that the WRAT estimates which are 

high simply reflect above average intellectual 

functioning in the respective samples. Thus, it 

must still be concluded that, in general, the 

WRAT underestimates actual grade level placement at the junior high school level. 

PERFORMANCE ON THE SAT 

Means and standard deviations for the grade 

scores on the Stanford Achievement Test are reported in table 39. Mean scores for the Monongalia County samples were slightly below the expected values, but discrepancies were by no 

means as extensive as those reported for the 

WRAT. Mean scores for the Wisconsin and 

Colorado control samples were also below the 

expected but were considerably closer to the 

national norms, The Colorado ninth grade sample, however, tended to equal or exceed the 

national norms. The Monongalia County samples 

did better on the Arithmetic subtest of the SAT 

than on the language-related tests. This appears 

to be a geographical peculiarity and is not replicated for the control samples. 

RELATION OF THE WRAT 

TO THE SAT 

Table 40 lists the validity coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT Arithmetic 

grade level scores with the grade scores of Advanced Form Km of the Stanford Achievement 

Test. Coefficients are given for the three grades 

and for the combined junior high school sample. 

Coefficients giving relationships to the most 

pertinent criteria have been boxed. The coefficients for Arithmetic Reasoning and Arithmetic 

Computation range from .74 to .80 for the MononTable 36. Means and standard deviations on the WRAT, by sub test, grade, and sample

for the junior high school samples (raw scores) 

Arithmetic Reading Arithmetic 

+ Reading 

Grade and sample Number 

Tota 1 junior high 

Monongalia County sample s-----------

Control samples 

Grade 7 

Monongalia County samples 

Control samples 

Grade 8 

Monongali.a County samples 

Control samples 

Grade 9 

Monongali.a County samples 

Control samples 

NOTE: S.D. —standard deviation. 

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 

330 24.35 5.19 46.87 12.72 71.37 16.17 

327 26.20 6,27 54.59 11.21 80.81 15.77 

111 22.46 4.53 42.94 11.65 65.40 14.82 

104 22.47 4.16 55.03 10.01 77.50 12.43 

101 23.89 4.59 45 � 70 11.02 70.09 13.06 

109 24.80 5.46 48.68 11.84 73.48 15.95 

118 26.52 5.46 51.57 13.54 78.08 17.28 

114 30.96 5.60 59.84 8,59 90.85 12.92 

29 
---------------- -------- --

---------------- --------------------------

---------------- --------------------------

---------------- --------- --------- --

Table 37. Means and standard deviations on the WRAT,by subtest, grade, and sample Eor 

the junior high school samples (grade level scores) 

Arithmetic Arithmetic Reading + Reading 

Grade and sample Number 

Total junior high 

Monongali.a County samples 

Control samples ----.--- -------. 

Grade 7 

Monongalia County samples 

Control samples 

Grade 8 

Monongali.a County samples

Control samples 

Grade 9 

Monongali.a County samples 

Control samples --.-----

NOTE: S.D.-standard deviation. 

galia County samples and from .66to.84 for the 

control samples. 

These values are substantial, and construct 

validity is again suggested since the most pertinent coefficients relating the Arithmeticsection 

of the WRATto the Arithmetic Contentarehigher 

than values relating the WRAT to other criterion 

tests. 

Validity coefficients describing the relation 

between the Reading grade level scores from the 

WRAT and the grade scores on subtesw of the 

Stanford Achievement Testare given intable 41. 

Coefficients for themostpertinent criteria(Paragraph Meaning and Word Mean~ng) range from.57 

to .80 and from .47 to .73, respectively. Intbis 

instance validity coefficients are almostas high 

for most other criterion variables with theexception of Study Skills and the Arithmetic tests. 

Table 42 gives the validity coefficients for 

the relationship between the combined Arithmetic 

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 

330 7.79 2.03 8.36 2.90 :.;~ 2.20 

327 8.62 2.61 10.11 2.73 . 2.38 

111 7.03 1.57 7.41 2.60 7.21 1.87


104 7.03 1.50 10.19 2.44 8.61 1.68


101 7.60 1.81 8.12 2.34 7.86 1.77


10$ 7.98 2.13 8.68 2.79 8.33 2.22


llE 8.68 2.24 9.45 3.21 9.07 2.43 

114 10.68 2.50 11,41 2.21 .1.04 2.13 

andReadinggrade levelsfrom the WRAT and the 

grade scores from the Stanford Achievement 

Test. Validity coefficients in this instance range 

from .51 to .84 fortheMonongaliaCountysamples 

and from .53 to .79 for the control samples. It 

may be noted that combined scores will improve 

prediction for the language-related criterion 

variables, but not for the number-related criterion variables. 

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WRAT 

AND SAT GRADE LEVEL ESTIMATES 

Attention must again be given to the question 

whether the reported underestimate of actual 

grade level placement noted for performanceof 

the junior high school samples on the WRATmay 

not be a function of the samples’ achievement 

levels being below their actual grade placement. 

Discrepancies have therefore been computed be30

-------------------

-------------------

-------------------

-------------------

Table 38. Discrepancies between observed WRATgrade level scores,actual grade level, and Jastak’s 

age norms, by subtest, grade, and sample for the junior high school samples 

Grade and sample 

Total junior high 

Monongalia County 

samples 

Control samples 

Grade 7 

Monongali.a County 

samples 

Control samples 

Grade 8 

Monongalia County 

samples 

Control samples 

Grade 9 

Monongalia County 

samples 

Control samples 

Discrepancy from Discrepancy from actual grade level Jastak’s age norms 

Arithmetic 

Arithmetic Reading + Reading Arithmetic Reading 

Arithmetic + Reading 

D t D t D t 

-1.03 19.81 -0.46 13.03 -0.75 16.64 -0.81 -0.24 -0.53 

-0.27 2.18 +1. 22 18.13 +0. 47 13.88 +0.02 +1.51 +0. 76 

-0.75 15.03 -0.37 1.50 -0.57 1.3.22 -0.82 -0.44 -0.64 

-0.84 15.71 +2.32 19.67 +0. 74 14.48 -0.82 +2. 34 +0. 76 

-1.17 ‘6.50 -0.65 12.79 -0.91 15.17 -1.00 -0.48 -0.74 

-0.94 14.63 -0.24 0.90 -0.59 12.78 -0.67 +0.03 -0.32 

-1.15 15.58 -0.38 1.29 -0.76 13.41 -0.52 +0.25 -0.13 

+0.88 13.76 +1.61 17.78 +1.24 16.23 +1.48 +2.21 +1.84 

lsignificant at the l-percent level of confidence. 

NOTE: D—algebraic difference; t—t-test of the significance of the difference between means. 

tween group means for the WRATsections andthe 

most appropriate criterion measures from the 

Stanford Achievement Test. 

Table 43 lists the discrepancies between 

means on the WRAT Arithmetic section and the 

Arithmetic Concepts and Reasoning and the 

Arithmetic Computation tests on the SAT. While 

there are systematic trends forall but the ninth 

grade control samples in the direction of underestimation of the SAT by the WRAT, only a few 

of these discrepancies reach significance at the 

l-percent level of confidence. The onlyindividual 

grade sample reaching significantlevels ofunderestimation is the seventh grade Wisconsincontrol 

sample. However, when the total Monongalia 

County junior high school sample is combined, 

significant underestimation is found for both 

criterion measures. But the magnitude of the 

underestimation averages to two-tenths ofagrade 

level, and it may therefore be concluded that the 

use of Jastak’s arithmetic grade level norms at 

the junior high school level will result in underestimation of actual grade placement but relatively accurate placement in terms of the students’ achievement as measured on the Stanford 

Achievement Test. 

A rather different story emerges for the 

Reading section of the WRAT. Relevant dataon 

the discrepancies and their significance arere­

. 

~ortedin table 44. It will benoted that the WRAT

Reading section systematically tends to overestimate the SAT performance. The extent of 

31 
--------- -------------------

--------- -------------------

---------

--------- -------------------

--------- -------------------

--------- -------------------

--------- -------------------

--------- -------------------

--------- -------------------

--- --- --- ---

Table 39. Means and standard deviations on the Stanford Achievement Test, by grade,


subtest, and sample for the junior high school samples (grade level scores)


Total Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9
 junior high


Subtest and sample


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


Paragraph Meaning


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Word Meaning


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Spelling


Monongalia County samples


Control samples----------?--------


Language


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Arithmetic Reasoning


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Arithmetic Computation


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Social Studies


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Science


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Study Skills


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


NOTE: S.D.—standard deviation.


32


7.93 2.31 7.25 2.23 7.84 2.34 8.65 2.14


8.78 2.39 8.19 2.24 7.96 2.47 10.09 1.80


8.06 2.36 7.11 2.16 8.01 2.13 9.00 2.34


9.57 2.24 8.88 2.20 8.89 2.32 10.08 1.52


7.90 1.99 8.90 2.34


8.71 2.10 8.34 1.93 8.23 2.07 9.51 2.04


7.57 2.99 7.14 3.04 6.57 2.61 8.83 2.81


8.90 2.46 7.82 2.32 8.63 2.56 10.15 1.86


8.02 2.10 7.14 1.79 7.92 1.90 8.94 2.15


8.74 2.05 7.74 1.60 8011 1.91 10.27 1.62


7.98 1.84 7.23 1.54 7.75 1.56 8.89 1.94


8,54 2.10 7.13 1.20 8,00 1.74 10.35 1.74


7.70 2.19 6.77 1.83 7.62 1.94 8.65 2.29


8.71 2.28 8.14 1.98 8.04 2.30 9.88 2.07


8.35 2.55 7.32 2.48 8,32 2.27 9.36 2.44


9.16 2.55 8.99 2.30 8.11 2.69 10.31 2.12


7.48 2.39 6.75 2.20 7.29 2.34 8.33 2.34


8.73 2.45 8.41 2.39 7.65 2.43 10.06 1.83

---------

------------------ --------- --- ---

------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------------- --------------------------------

-------------------

-------------------- -------------------------------- --- ---

------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------------

‘lable40. Validit coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT Arithmetic rade


level scores witx the grade level scores on Advanced Form Kmofthe Stanford Achfeve­
 ment Test, by grade, sample, and subtest for the junior high school samples


Total


junior Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9


Subtest high


M c M c M c M c 

Paragraph Meaning--------------------------- .59 .66 .67 ,53 .52 .67 .53 .63


Word Meaning---------.-----m-- ----b .58 .64 .65 .56 .44 .58 .51 .61 

Spelling --a----d- .56 .49 .40 .58 .57 .50 

Language.................------------...---- .58 .66 .68 � 52 .46 .60 .54 .64 

Arithmetic Reasonin r.80 .80 .78 � 66 � 79 ,79 ,75 � 71 

Arithmetic Computatfon---------------------- � 79 .84 .74 .69 .78 .78 .76 2.74 

Social Studies � 57 .64 .61 .56 .42 .58 .51 .59 

Science .60 .57 .66 � 47 .50 .62 .53 .52 

Study Skills .67 .63 .74 � 51 .64 .68 .58 .58 

NOTE: M-Monongalia County samples; C-control samples.


Table 41. Validity coefficientsdescribing the relationofthe WRAT Reading grade level
 scores with the grade level scores on Advanced Form 13nof the Stanford Achievement


Test, by grade, ~ample, and subtest for the junior high — school samples
 — 

Total


junior Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9


Subtest high


M c M c M c M c 

—


Paragraph Meaning-------- .68 .64 .71 � 47 ,57 � 70 .69 .56 

Word Meaning-------------------------------.78 .70 .80 .62 .72 .73 .75 .64 

Spelling........-------- ,73 � 66 .72 .81 .82 .67 

Language .... .70 .63 .73 .52 .62 .72 .71 .63 

Arithmetic Reasoning .64 .60 .62 ;:: .51 .61 .64 .51 

Arithmetic Computation .64 .53 .65 � 40 .57 .65 .50 

Social Studies .64 061 .70 .59 .44 .67 .63 .42 

science .70 .64 .76 .55 � 55 � 66 .68 .48 

Study Skills --..---- .65 .58 .62 .43 .60 .63 .63 .38 

NOTE: M-Monongalia County samples; C-control samples.


33

-- - - - --- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---- -------- ----------------

------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------------ - - - - - - ------ --- - - - --- - - -- --- -- ---- - -- -------- -------- --------

--- ---

Table 42. Validity coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT combined Arith­


metic and Reading grade level scores with the grade level scores on Advanced Form


Km of the Stanford Achievement Test, by grade,sample, and subtest for the junior high school samples — 

Subtest 

Paragraph Meaning . - - -- . . - - - -----


Word Meaning -. - . - - - - - - - - -- . - - - - - -


Spelling


Language . . . . . . . . ----


Arithmetic Reasoning


Arithmetic computation


Social Studies


Science


Study Skills ---.,----


Total 

junior Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 

high 

M c M c M c M c 

.72 .73 .78 .58 .65 .76 .70 .66 

.78 .75 .84 ;;; .70 .74 ,73 .69 

.72 .68 .79 .80 .64 

,73 .72 .79 .61 .65 .74 .72 ,70 

,79 .79 .76 .69 .74 ;;; .77 .68 

.78 .77 .77 .64 .66 .78 .69 

.69 � 70 .75 .68 .51 .70 � 66 .56 

.74 .68 .81 .61 .62 � 71 .69 .55 � 74 .68 .75 .54 .73 .72 .68 .53 

NOTE: M—Monongali,a County samples; C—control samples. 

the overestimate depends also on the criterion 

measure involved and shows decided regional 

differences. Thus, the WRAT Reading section 

significantly overestimates scores on all criterion measures for the Wisconsinand Colorado 

samples. Significant overestimates for the Monongalia County samples occur only for the 

eighth grade on Language, for the ninth grade 

on Paragraph Meaning, and for the combined 

junior high samples on both Language and Paragraph hleaning. Finally, the California (eighth 

grade) sample is overestimated on the Language 

subtest only. 

In summary, it appears that there are substantial discrepancies between reading skill and 

actual grade placement in the junior high school 

level, although a definite relationship does exist. 

As a consequence, we find the apparent paradox 

that the WRAT Reading test in some instances 

will underestimate actual grade placement while 

overestimating language-related achievements 

measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. In 

a situation suchas this, the test author obviously 

faces the dilemma asto whetherto keyhis measures togradeplacementortoindependentachievement indices. In the case of the norms for the 

WRAT for the pupils 13-15 years old, the test 

author apparently has achieved a compromise 

between these two alternatives. 

THE WRAT SECTIONS 

Interrelationship


Theissue of the interrelation of the twoparts 

of the WRAT usedin the Health ExaminationSurvey and the question of the advisability ofcombining these scores has alsobeeninvestigated for 

the junior high school samples. Table45gives the 

correlations between the two sections and their 

relation to the combined score for eachgradeancl 

the total junior high school samples, Again, substantial correlation between the two sections is 

noted, and as in the elementary school study, it 

appears that the Reading section correlates 

most highly with the combined score. Attention 

is again called totable 41, which showed that the 

Reading section of the WRAT predicted performance on the Arithmetic criterion variables 

reasonably well, although not quite as well as did 

34 
-------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

------------------------------------------

Table 43. DLscrepanci.esbetween selected criterion measures from the Stanford Achieve­


ment Test and the Arithmetic section of Ehe IJEU4T,by subtest, grade, and sample for


the junior high school samples


Arithmetic
 Arithmetic
 :onceptsand Computation


Grade and sample Reasoning


D t D t 

Total junior high


.19 -0.19 12.75
 Monongalia County samples -0.23 “.3


Control samples -0.13 1.51 -0.07 0.90


Grade 7


Monongalia County samples------.-------.--------_---=-----0.09 0.83 -0.18 1.70


Control samples -0.63 -4.74 -0.12 1.11


Grade 8


Monongali.aCounty samples -0.29 2.42 -0.12 1.05


Control samples -0.15 1.17 +0.04 0.31


Grade 9


Monongalia County samples -0.30 2.10 -0.2.5 1.84


Control samples +0.41 2.48 +0.33 2.09


lSignificantat the l-percent level of confidence.


NOTE: D—algebraic difference; t—t-test of the significance of the difference be­


tween means.


theArithmeticsection. Here also,then,theRead- to one-fourth
ofthevarianceiscommon withthe


ing sectionmight suffice as a briefestimateof measure of generalability. Correlations
with


schoolachievement. parents’occupational
level,however,remain


or quitelow and in no instance 

Relation to General Ability and accountfor more than15percentofthecommon 

Socioeconomic Status variance.As for theelementaryschoolsample, 

itcan be concluded, thattheWRATis 

nonsignificant


therefore,


Table46 givesthecorrelation oftheWRAT reasonablyapplicableto subjectsof varying


withthemeasure of generalability andwiththe socioeconomic backgrounds.
A similarconclusion

socioeconomicstatusof the students’ parents. withrespectto levelsof intelligence,
 however,


Itisfoundagainthatforthesesamplesone-third must awaitfurtherinvestigation.


35

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

---

---

---

---

Table 44. Grade level discrepanciesbetween selected criterion measures from the Stan­


ford Achievement Test and the Readim~ section of the WRAT,. by . subtest..- grade. and


sample for the junior high school sam~les


CordMeaning Paragraph Spelling Language
 x Vocabulary Meaning


Grade and sample


Total junior high


Monongalia County samples-


Control samples


Grade 7


Monongali.aCounty samples-


Control samples


Grade 8


Monongalia County samples-


Control samples


Grade 9


Monongali.aCounty samples-


Control samples


D t D t D t D 

+0.30 2.22 +0.43 ‘3.23 +0.89 15.97


+0.53 14.82 -I-1.32110.91 +1.39 113.37 +1.20 19.68


+0.32 +0.18 +0.29 1.34


::; +1.98 1:::: +1.29 +1.83 11O.OO +2.35 110.22
 1.:


+0.14 0.59 +&; +0.25 1.05 +1.48 15.76


-0.21 1.14 . 1;:;; +0.43 12.74 +0 .03 0.16


+0.41 +0.76 12.99 +0.51 2.06 +0.58 2.16


+1.33 1:::; +1.32 17.37 +1.90 112.10 +1.26 *7*54


lSignifi.cant
at the l-percent level of confidence.


NOTE: D—algebraic difference; t—t-test of the signi-fi.cance
 of the difference be­


tween means. -


IV. THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDY 

BACKGROUND DATA 

The subjectsfortheseniorhighschoolstudy


were obtainedin MonongaliaCountyby theex-


haustivetestingof studentsin theupper three


grades of a semiruralhighschool,and quotas


were completedby random samplingfrom the


University
High School.Similarquotasampling


was used in one highschoolineachofthethree


controlareas.Because of thedemograpbicdis­


tributions inthesamplingareas, theaverage
occu­


pational
evelof theparentswas somewhatlow


in West Virginiaand California.
 The remaining


two samples (Coloradoand Wisconsin)were


closerto,or slightly
 above,thenationalaverage.


With respectto intellectual ability,
 ratherclose


matchingto national
averageswas obtainedfor


theWest VirginiaandCalifornia
 samples,while


the Wisconsin and Colorado samples showed


above averageability levels,
probablyreflecting


different patterns
ofhighschooldropoutthanwas


truefortheprincipalsample.Table47 givesthe


relevant dataonparent’soccupation,
 pupilability


level,days betweenindividual
 and group tests,


age at time of test,and grade levelattimeof


test.Itshouldbe notedthatfor thehfonongalia


36

------------------------

------- ------- ------- ------------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -----

------------------------

------- ------- ------- ------- -----

snd control samples both grade and age levels 

have been matched to within less than one-tenth 

of a grade level. 

ADEQUACY OF GRADE LEVEL 

PLACEMENT 

Table 48 gives means and standard deviations 

for the WRAT raw scores, and similar data for 

the WRAT grade level scores are provided in 

table 49. All grade level estimates (with the exception of the Wisconsin tenth grade sample) 

wure below actual grade level placement. Regional 

discrepancies were again the most noteworthy. 

The West Virginia and California samples showed 

actual grade level placement underestimates 

ranging from two to three grade levels, while the 

remaining samples came very close to actual 

grade level. Magnitude of discrepancy from actual 

grade level and associated significance test results are reported in table 50. Considering the 

above-average intellectual level forthe Wisconsin 

and Colorado samples, it must again be concluded 

that the WRAT, in general, seriously underestimates actual grade level for senior high 

school students. 

A fair consideration of the test author’s 

position once again must include reanalysis of the 

data with respect to the notion that grade levels 

are not expected to show systematic increment 

because of different(and oftenautomatic)promotion policies. The grade level equivalent at 

the 50th percentile corresponding to the average 

age of our grade sample was obtained from 

Jastak’s manual, and discrepancies were recomputed using these new levels as reference points. 

No significance tests are available for the revised discrepancies also reported in table 50. 

By inspection, however, it may now be seen that 

use of Jastak’s conversion tables results in discrepancies which seem to reflect the intellectual 

levels of the several samples. Thus use of the 

conversion tables leads to obvious overestimates 

of grade level for the Wisconsin and Colorado 

samples. However, grade level estimates for the 

Table 45, Correlation of the Arithmetic and Reading sections of the WRAT and correlation of each section with the Arithmetic and Reading (A -I­R) composite score, by


sample and grade for the junior high school samples (raw scores and grade level scores)
 . 

Grade
 , 

M c M c M c 

Raw scores


Total junior high 

Grade 7 

Grade


Grade ;----------------------------------------


Grade level scores


Total junior high .59 .70 .85 .89 .93 .95 

Grade ---.--- .57 .42 .82 .75 .94 .91 

Grade L---------------------------------------- .45 .63 .81 .88 .89 .93

Grade .58 .64 .84 .92 �93 .89 

NOTE: M-Monongalia County samples; C-control samples. 

37

-----------------------------

----- - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --

-- -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- --- - -- -- -- -- - -- - ----

----------------------------

-------- -------- -------- ----

Table 46. Correlation of WRATgrade level scores with general ability level and with 

occupational level of parent,by subtest, sample,and 

s amples 

Grade 

Total junior high 

Grade . - - *.. - - --

Grade :--------------------------------------------

Grade 9- - -- -

Grade 

grade for the junior high schoo.L 

General ability level with: 

Arithmetic Arithmetic Reading + Reading 

M c M c M I c 

.49 .59 .56 .62 .59 I .66 

.54 .51 .56 .63 .62 �68 

.51 .60 .52 .60 .61 .66 

.50 .35 .63 .38 1.65 .40

Occupational level 

of parent with: 

Arithmetic Arithmetic Reading + Reading 

m T 

Total junior high .181 .29 

Grade 7--------------------------------------------- .31 .09 

Grade 8-------------------------------------------- .28 .39 

Grade 9-------- ---.---- m

I 

.09 .19 

I I 

NOTE: M—Monongalia County samples; C—control samples, 

West Virginia and California samples now more 

closely approach their actual grade average. 

Perhaps some closure can be achieved by 

considering the discrepancies for the combined 

senior high school samples. Inspection of the 

totals in table 50 suggests that use ofgrade level 

estimates for senior high school students underestimates actual level while use of Jastak’s 

conversion table results ina slightoverestimate. 

PERFORMANCE ON THE MAT 

Data on the student’s performances on the 

Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT), thecriterion variables for the senior high school sampie, were analyzed in twodifferent ways.Standard 

scores are available which indicate the student’s 

performance as compared with the total high 

school sample, onwhichthetestwas standardized. 

38 
------- -----------------

------- -----------------

------- -----------------

------- -----------------

I 

Table 47. Means and standarddeviationson selectedbackgrounddata, by grade and sample for the


senior high school samples


Days
 Occupa- between Age at Grade level
 tional individual time of at time of
 level of and group group test group test
 Grade and sample parent tests


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean ;.D.


Total senior high


Monongal.iaCounty samples


Control samples


Grade 10


MonongaliaCounty samples


Control samples


Grade 11


MonongaliaCounty samples


Control samples


Grade 12


MonongaliaCounty samples


Control samples


3.70 2.36 4.14 1.05 6.63 10.51 ;;.(); 1.06 11.85 0.81 

4.83 2.57 4.41 0.94 -4.74 3.22 . 0.85 11.78 0.51 

3.69 2.30 4.17 1.08 6.79 11.05 16.09 0.62 10.83 0.05


5.11 2.64 4.58 0.79 -7.18 1.02 16.11 0.44 10.90 0.00


3.71 2.28 ;.;: 1.10 7.02 10.32 17.03 0.80 11.82 0.04


4.02 2.34 . 0.87 -5.88 0.81 17.00 0.45 11.90 0.00


3.70 2.40 4.11 0.95 6.11 10.17 18.04 0.67 12.82 0.04


5.55 2.46 4.83 0.98 0.46 0.53 17.99 0.39 12.90 0.00


NOTE: S.D.-standard deviation.


These scores are in the typicalT-score form


with a nleanof50 anda standarddeviationof lO.


On scores such as these, one would expect the 

eleventh grader to fall atabout the average while 

the tenth grader should be below and the twelfth 

grader above the mean given for the totalnormative population. A second type of score,thewithin 

grade stanine, permits comparison of the study’s 

subsamples withnationalnorms. Means andstandard deviations in T-score form are reportedin 

table 51 and their grade stanine equivalents are 

given in table 52. 

The Monongalia County sample fell at or 

above average on the subtests of Reading, Language, Language Study Skills, Social Studies ~-

formation, and Science Information, while itfell 

somewhat below the national average on Spelling, 

Mathematical Computation, and Mathematical 

Analyses. Underestimates ofachievementofgrade 

level for the Arithmetic part of the Wide Range 

39 
Achievement Test for these samples may therefore be attributable to their generally lower level 

in mathematics achievement. 

As on the WRAT, the control samples from 

Colorado and Wisconsin exceeded the West Virginia samples on practically all of the Metropolitan subtests, while the California sample performed slightly below the West Virginia sample. 

Care must be taken, however, to remember the 

higher average on the general ability index for the 

two control samples before interpreting these 

results. 

Comparison of the control samples to national 

averages requires consideration of the within 

grade stanines reported in table 52. The average 

stanine has a value of five. Hence, it follows that 

the Wisconsin sample was at about the national 

average on most subjects except Language, on 

which it was low, and Science and Social Studies, 

on which it was high. The California sample 

appeared to be at or near average on Reading, 

Social Studies, and Science and low on all other 

subjects, while the Colorado sample was at or 

about average on Spelling and Language and above 

average on all other items. The Monongalia 

County samples, finally, were all below average 

on Mathematics and Spelling, and the twelfth 

grade sample appeared low on all subjects except 

Science and Social Studies. 

RELATION OF THE WRAT 

TO THE MAT 

Table 53 gives the validity coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT Arithmetic 

section grade level scores with the standard 

scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. 

Results for individual grade levels and combined 

high school samples are given separately for the 

Monongalia County and control groups. The boxed 

group of coefficients in this table represents the 

Table 48. Means and standard deviations on the WRAT, by subtest,grade , and sample for the senior


high school samples (raw scores)


Grade and sample


Total senior high


Monongalia County samples----------------------


Control samples................----------------


Grade 10


Monongalia County samples----------------------


Control samples--------------------------------


Grade 11


Monongalia County samples----------------------


Control samples--------------------------------


Grade 12


Monongalia County samples----------------------


Control samples--------------------------------


NOTE: S.D.—standard deviation.


Arithmetic
 Aritkxtic Reading + Reading


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


301 28.30 6.34 55.21 13.04 83.52 17.38 

26$ 30.11 6.75 59.54 10.74 89.62 15.50 

95 27.07 5.93 51.52 12.75 78.59 16.24 

102 31.11 5.92 60.03 9.38 91.14 13.21 

103 28.85 6.22 57.43 13.40 86,31 17.98


98 26.36 6.30 55.98 11.67 82.34 16,06


103 28.87 6.66 56.40 12.18 85.27 16.81


69 33.96 5.74 63.87 9.45 97.71 12.95


40 
-------------

-----------------------

-------------

-----------------------

------------- -----------------------

-------------

-----------------------

Table 49. weans and standard deviations on the WRAT, by subtest, grade, and sample 

for the senior high school samples (grade level scores) 

Arithmetic
 Arithmetic Reading + Reading


Grade and sample Number


Total senior high 

Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Grade 10


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Grade 11


Monongali.a County samples 

Control samples 

Grade 12


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


NOTE: S.D.—standard deviation.


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


301 9.48 2.78 10.29 3.16 9.88 2.61 

269 10.32 2.99 11.36 2.66 10.84 2.48 

95 8.90 2.55 9.40 3.02 9.13 2.38 

102 10.72 2.71 11.46 2.39 11.09 2.19 

103 9.72 2.74 10.87 3.24 10.30 2.67 

98 8.68 2.65 10.48 2.81 9.58 2.42 

103 9.77 2.93 10.53 3.02 10.15 2.61 

69 12.05 2.65 12.45 2.37 12.25 2.08 

correlations with the most pertinent criterion 

variables, the subtests involving subject knowledge of Mathematical Computation and Concepts 

and of Mathematical Analysis and Problem Solving. The validity coefficients for these specific 

criteria for the individual grade samples range 

from .62 to .82 for the Monongalia County and 

from .66 to .77 for the control samples. Values 

for the combined high school sample are .68and 

.77 and .73 and .78, respectively. These values 

are above correlations with the nonmathematics 

criteria and thus demonstrate construct validity 

for the WRAT Achievement section also in the 

high school sample. 

Vtilidity coefficients describing the relation 

of the WRATReading grade level scores with the 

stondard scores from the Metropolitan Achievement Test are given in table 54. Here the most 

pertinent criterion variables would seem to be 

the subjects Reading, Spelling, and Language, 

although the topics Language Studies Skills and 

Social Studies Vocabulary are also clearly relevant. Correlations with the three most pertinent 

criteria range from .61 to .82 for the Monongalia 

County samples and from .49 to .82 for the control samples. Again, construct validity seems 

present for the Reading section oftheWRATsince 

correlations are generally higher for the language-related than for the nonlanguage-oriented 

subject matter criteria. 

Relationships were also evaluated between 

scores for the combined Wide Range Achievement 

Test and the standard scores on theMAT. Coefficients describing these relationships are listed 

in table 55. As in the studies using the Stanford 

Achievement Test as the criterion, it is again 

found that use of the combined WRATscore improves prediction for the language-related criterion measures while it does not significantly 

affect the magnitude of prediction of the arithmetic measures. 

41

-----------

Table 50. Discrepancy.ee between observed WRATgrade level scores,actual grade level, and Jastak’s 

age norms, by subtest, grade, and sample for the senior high school samples 

I Discrepancy from
 Discrepancy from actual grade level Jastak’s age norms


Arithmetic Grade and sample Arithmetic Reading i- Arithmetic 

r Reading Arithmetic Reading + Reading 

t D t D t 

Total senior high I


Monon alia County 

sampfes----------- -2.37 ‘14.81 -1.56 18.62 -1.97 113.13 -0.29 +0.52 +0.11 

Control samples---- -1.47 18.12 -0.43 12.65 -0.95 16.33 +0.57 +1.61 -!-1.09 

Grade 10
 I


Monongalia County 

samples----------- -1.91 17.38 -1.41 14.56 -1.68 16.94 -0.65 -0.15 -0.42 

Control samples---- -0.20 0.75 +0. 56 2.36 +0. 19 0.88 +1.12 +1.88 j-1.51 

Grade 11
 I


Monongalia County 

samples----------- -2.08 17.76 -0.93 12.92 -1.50 15.72 -0.03 +1.12 +0. 55 

Control samples---- -3.24 112.09 -1.44 ‘4.91 -2.34 ‘9.59 -1.07 +0. 73 -0.17 

Grade 12 I 

Mcm~~.ia County
 -3.03 110.52 -2.27 ‘7.64 -2.65 110.27 -0.18 +0.58 +0. 20 

Control samples---- -0.85 12,66 -0.45 1.58 -0.65 2.60 -I-2.10 +2. 50 +2. 30 

lSignificant at or beyond the l-percent level of confidence.


NOTE: D—algebraic difference; t—t-test of the significance of the difference between means.


DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WRAT 

AND MAT ESTIMATES 

While the correctness of grade level estimation may not be as crucial at the high school 

level as it is for children at the earlier ages, it 

is nevertheless importanttoassess towhatextent, 

ifany,theWRAT tends to overestimate or underestimate school achievement as measured byan 

independent assessment procedure. 

No grade level estimates were available for 

the MAT, but itwaspossibletouseJastak’s tables 

to convert grade levels into standard scoreform. 

Jastak’s standard scores were converted into the 

conventional T-score form, and discrepancies 

were computed, even though the absence ofappropriate ,statistics in the manuals precluded 

formal significance tests. 

Tables 56 and 57 give the WRAT Arithmetic 

and Reading score means in T-score form and 

list the discrepancies in T-score points from the 

corresponding means on the Metropolitan 

Achievement Test. There is considerable variability among grade levels and samples. The 

clearest picture merges when we consider the 

combined means for thetotalhighschoolsamples. 

Here it appears that the Arithmetic sectiononthe 

WRAT slightly overestimated achievement in 

mathematics for the Monongalia County samples 

but was approximately close, onthe average, for 

the control samples. The WRAT Reading section 

closely predicted average level for the Metro42 
politan Reading Test (except for marked underestimate of the Colorado twelfth grade sample) 

but seemed to overestimate the Spelling and 

Language subtests of the Metropolitan by an 

average of one-half of a standard deviation. 

THE WRAT SECTIONS 

Interrelationship 

Table 58 gives the intercorrelations between 

the Arithmetic and Reading sections of the WRAT 

for the high school samples. Substantial correlation exists between these sections for all samples, and the finding for the elementary and 

junior high samples regarding the higher correlation of the Reading section with the combined 

Arithmetic and Reading score is replicated. Inspection of tables 55 through 57, however, suggests somewhat better definition in criterion 

prediction for the two forms of the test. Thus, 

while the Reading section presents a better 

choice if the battery has to be shortened, there 

appears to be greater justification for retaining 

both subtests of the WRAT at the high school 

level than at the lower grades. 

Relation to General Ability and 

Socioeconomic Status 

The correlation of the WRAT parts and combined score with the measure of intellectual 

ability and occupation of parent is given in table 

59. For the high school samples, correlations of 

the WRAT with occupational level, as the estimate 

of socioeconomic status, are nonsignificant, or 

trivial, and present evidence of the utility of the 

test for children from varying socioeconomic 

backgrounds. Correlation with intellectual ability 

is again quite substantial, although some decrement in the relationship occurs at the twelfth grade 

level. 

V. VALIDITY OF THE WRAT’ AT EXTREME ABILITY LEVELS 

WRAT PERFORMANCE AT 

EXTREME LEVELS 

In the previous section substantial correlations were reported between the WRAT scores 

and the measure of general ability. These findings 

raised serious questions as to the suitability of 

the WRAT at extreme levels of intellectual ability. 

In order to handle this problem, special studies 

were conducted on samples of subjects at both 

the lowest and highest levels of the ability range. 

For this study subjects were pooled from the 

Monongalia County and the control samples and 

subsamples were pooled wherever comparable 

forms of the criterion tests were available. As 

u result, data are presented on four samples. 

Two of these represent students from the fifth 

through the ninth grades, all of whom took the 

Stanford Achievement Test. The other two samples represent students from grades 10-12, on 

whom we had comparable data on the Metropolitan 

Achievement Test. In each set, one sample represents students with IQ’s of 80 or below, while 

the other sample represents students with IQ’s 

of 121 or above. 

Table 60 shows the mean age and grade level 

placement for each of these samples, as well as 

the WRAT grade level scores. As would be expected, mean ages are higher for the low-ability 

groups and the average grade level scores on the 

WRAT are much below actual grade level for the 

low-ability groups. The two high-ability groups 

are substantially above their expected grade 

level, but of course, the discrepancy here is not 

as great for the low-ability group. 

In the analysis of the validity of the WRAT 

for the extreme groups, the matter of the relation 

of the WRAT to the most pertinent criteria from 

the Stanford and Metropolitan Achievement Tests 

will again be attended to and, in the case of the 

SAT, the discrepancy between grade levels will 

be considered. 

43 
-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

----

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

----

Table 51. Means and standard deviations on the Metropolitan Achievement Test,b grade,


aubtest, and sample for the senior high school samples (standard scores7


Subtest and sample


Reading


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Spelling


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Language


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Language Study Skills


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Social Studies Skills


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Social Studies Vocabulary


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Social Studies Information


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Mathematical Computation


and Concepts


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Mathematical Analysis


and Problem Solving


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Science Information


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Science Concepts


Monongalia County samples---


Control samples


Total Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
 senior high


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


52.70 13.76 50.54 13.18 54.83 13.69 52.56 14.02


56.41 13.86 52.39 12.80 52.61 12.60 67,74 10.41


47.76 16.16 43.96 14.79 48.59 16.17 50.45 16.71


50.96 15.84 49.72 14.57 47.49 16.71 57.71 14.24


51.06 16 � 21 48.63 15.63 51.87 15.67 52.49 16.99 

52.15 14.12 46.76 12.52 50.24 12.95 62,83 12.08 

51.18 18.27 51.30 18.98


56.84 15.56 53.16 14.23 52.15 14.45 68.93 12.30


53.16 14.23 67.68 13.77


58.48 17.00 54.34 15.37 54.07 15.56 70.87 15.07 

52.66 15.09	 49.66 13.67 53.61 13.94 54.47 16.91


54.12 12.33 56.08 13.64


46.54 15.54 43.39 13.62 48.87 14.58 47.12 17.52


52.83 16.47 51.24 13.47 46.41 15.77 64.29 15.55


46.19 17.51 44.40 16.94 46.37 16.60 47.66 18.72


53.59 17.55 51.15 14,65 46,99 16.26 66.59 16.38


51.62 14.82	 52.74 14.85 51.94 12.38 50.26 16.79


56.77 13.62 51.77 15.97


57.87 14.33 67.29 15.34


NOTE: S.D.—standard deviation.


44

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

----------

--------------------

---------- --------------------

---------- --------------------

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 52. Means and standard deviations on the Metropolitan Achievement Test,by grade,


subtest, and sample for the senior high school samples (within grade stanines)


Subtest


Reading


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Spelling-


Monongalia County samples


Control.samples


Language


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Language Study Skills


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Social Studies Skills


Monongalia County samples


Control sa~ples


Social Studies Vocabulary


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Social.Studies Information


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Mathematical Computation


and Concepts


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Mathematical Analysis and


Problem Solvin~


MonongaUa County samples


Control samples


Science Information


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Science Concepts


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


NOTE: S.D.-standard deviation.


Total


senior high Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12


Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.


4.73 1.87 4.92 1.77 4.98 1.94 4.31 1.82


5.33 1.80 5.15 1.70 4.73 1.76 6.43 1.47


4.21 2.07 4.12 2.02 4.32 2.12 4.17 2.05


4.65 2.08 4.87 2.03 4.14 2.13 5.04 1.94


4.47 2.03 4.65 1.99 4.58 2.02 4.19 2.04


4.58 1.75 4.25 1.64 4.30 1.76 5.48 1.59


4.48 2.31 4.15 2.31


5.23 1.96 5.15 1.85 4.57 1.94 6.30 1.68


5.30 1.72 6.42 1.73


5.80 2.15 6.01 2.07 4.93 2.04 6.71 1.94


4.76 1.92	 5.17 1.77 4.73 1.72 4.41 2.15


5.76 1.57 5.12 1.83


4.23 1,88 4.07 1.77 4.45 1.77 4.16 2.06


5.01 2.06 5.12 1*9O 4.13 1.93 6.09 1.90


4.24 1.99 4.27 1.97 4.13 1.91 4.33 2.07


5.13 2.02 5.18 1.80 4.27 1.90 6.29 1.87


4.84 1.91	 5.34 1.94 4.70 1.68 4.53 2.01


5.85 1.80 4.73 2.09 ..- .-.


--.,


5.52 1.75 6.01 1.86


45

----

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- --- ---

------------------------------------ -----------------------

----------------------- -------------------

------------------

---

-------

--- ---

--- --- --- ------------------------- ---------------------------- --- ---

---

---

---

---

--- --- ---

--- ---

---

---

---

---

-------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

------------------------------------

-----------------------

----------------------- -------------------

------------------

-------

------------------------- ----------------------------

---

---- --- --- ---

--- --- ---

Table 53. Validity coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT Arithmetic grade 

level scores w?th the standard scores-on the Metropolitan Achievement Tes~, by 

grade, sample, and subtest for the senior high school samples 

Total i 

senior Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 

Subtest high I

M c M c M c M c 

.62 .57 .58 .50 .58 .55 .68 .50 

.58 .54 .51 .56 .50 .50 �66 ,43 

Language .66 .58 .64 .46 .57 .69 ;;; .61 

Language Study Skills .59 .45 .52 .57 ;;5 

Social Studies Skills .46 

Social Studies Vocabulary .59 .62 .60 .52 

Social Studies Information .59 .54 .43 .53 .56 .65 

Mathematical Computation and Concepts .77 .78 .70 .77 .76 .76 .82 .73


Mathematical Analysis and Problem Solving--- —

.68 .73 .74 .66 .62 .69 .69 1.74


Science Information .52 .51 .52 .51 .49 .58


Science Concepts .50 .57


NOTE: M—Monongalia County samples; C—control samples.


Table 54. Validitv coefficients describing the relation of the WRAT Readinz grade 

level scores with the standard scores on-the Metropolitan Achievement 

grade, sample, and subtest for the senior high school-samples 

Total


senior Grade 10 Grade 11 Gra 12


Subtest I high


M c M c M c M c 

Reading .61 -xi .66 .57 .61 .65 .49 

Spelling .73 .76 .69 .69 .82 .82 .66 .69 

Language .65 .65 .72 .67 .62 .74 .63 3.49


Language Study Skills .61 .55 .62 .67 .53 .48 

Social Studies Skills .40 .13 

Social Studies Vocabulary .62 .54 .67 .58 

Social Studies Information .56 .62 .43 .59 .52 .48 ..-

Mathematical Computation and Concepts .53 .54 .56 .51 .57 .58 .46 .30 

Mathematical Analysis and Problem Solving--- .49 .53 .51 .46 .48 .44 .48 .31 

Science Information .56 .63 .56 .63 .44 .51 

Science Concepts .54 .48 

8 

NOTE: M-Monongalia County samples; C—control samples.


46

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

-------------------------------------

------------------------------------

------------------------------------ -----------------------

----------------------- -------------------

------------------ -------

------------------------- ----------------------------

----------------- ---------------------------

----------------- ---------------------------

----------------- -------------------

----------------- ------------------ � 

Table 55. Validity coefficients describing the relation of the combined WRAT Arith­


metic and Reading grade level scores with the standard scores on the Metropolitan


Achievement Test, by grade, sample, and subtest for the senior high school samples


Total 

senior Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 

Subtest high 

M c M c M c M c 

Reading .70 .67 .73 .63 .67 .68 .70 .60 

Spelling .75 .73 .72 .72 .75 .75 .75 .67 

Language .75 .70 .80 .65 .67 .80 .78 .67 

Language Study Skills .68 .58 .65 .70 .69 .67 

Social Studies Skills .50 .44 

Social Studies Vocabulary .69 .61 ;;: .66 

Social Studies Information .66 .68 .50 .6,3 .64 

Mathematical Computation and Concepts .73 .75 .72 .75 .74 .75 ;:; .64 

Mathematical Analysis and Problem Solving--- .66 .69 .72 .66 .60 .63 .65 

Science Information .62 .68 .63 .65 .52 .62 

Science Concepts .60 .64 

NOTE: M—Monongalia County samples; C—control samples.


Table 56. T-score discrepancies between selected criterion measuresonthe Metropolitan


Achievement Test and the Arithmetic section of the WRAT,by subtest, grade,and sample


for the senior high school samples


WRAT


Arithmetic


Grade and sample score in


T.-score


Mathematical Mathematical


Computation Analysis and


and Concepts Problem Solving


Total senior high


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Grade 10


Monongalia County samples


Control samples


Grade 11


Monongalia County samples


Control samples-.------


Grade 12


Monongalia County samples


Control samples----_.---


NOTE: D—algebraic difference.


form


49.3


53.0


47.3


53.3


50.0


46.0


49.3


57.0


D D


+2.8


+0.2 

+3.9


+2.1


+1.1 

-0.4 

+2.2


-7.3


-I-3.1 

-0.6 

+2.9 

+1.1 

+3.6 

-1.0 

:;.: 

47 
------------------- -----------------------------

------------------- -----------------------------

------------------- -----------------------------

------------------- -----------------------------

-------

-- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- --- -- ------

-- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- --

----- -- -- ---- -- -- ---- -- -- ---- -- -- --

---- --- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- --

Table 57. T-score discrepancies between selected criterion measures onthe Metropolitan


Achievement Test and the Reading section of the WRAT, by subtest, grade, and sample


for the senior high school samples


WRAT


Arithmetic Reading Spelling Language


Grade and sample score in


T-score D D D
 form


Total senior high


Monongalia County samples 52.0 -0.7 1-4.2 +0.9


Control samples 56.0 -0.4 +6.0 +3.8


Grade 10


Monongalia County samples ::.; -1.8 +4.7 +0.1


Control samples . +3.6 +6.3 +9.2


Grade 11


Monongalia County samples 52.0 -2.8 +3.4 +0.1


Control samples 52.7 +0.1 +5.2 +1,5


Grade 12


Monongalia County samples 52.0 -0.6 -1.5 -0.5


Control samples 58.3 -9.4 -1.6 -4.5


NOTE: D—algebraic difference.


Table 58. Correlation of the Arithmetic and Reading sections of the WRAT and corre­
 lation of each section with the Arithmetic and Reading (A -1-
R) composite score, b


sampleand grade forthe senior high school samples (raw scoresand grade level scores7


Arithmetic


with Arithmetic Reading


with A + R with A -1-
R

Grade Reading


z T


Raw scores


Total senior high------------------ -
 .55 I .54 I .78] .811 .951 ,93


I I I 1 I


Grade 10----------------------------------------- .44 .46 .71 .78 .94 .92


Grade -- - -- - --- --- -
 .61 .56 .81 .80 .96 ,95


Grade :; -..-- --- -- - -- - - - -- .55 .38 .80 .73 .94 .90


Grade level scores


Total senior high-------------------------- .54 .54 .86 I .89 I .891 .86


I I I


Grade 10----------------------------------------- .45 .47 .82 .88 .88 .84


Grade -- - - --
 .59 .57 .87 ,88 .91 .89


Grade H -- - ---- -- - - -- -- -- .54 .36 .87 .85 .88 .80


I


NOTE: M—Monongalia County samples; C—control samples.


48

------- ------- ------- -------

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ---- -------- -------- ---

-------- -------- ----

------------------- ------- -------- -------- ---------------- --- -------- -------- ---

Table 59. Correlation of WRATgrade level scores with general ability level and with 

occupational level of parent, by subtest, sample, and grade for the senior high 

school samples 

I 

General ability level with: 

1 I 

Arithmetic Grade Aritbmeti.c I

Reading 

I + Reading 

i 

I M 

Total senior high .58 

L 

Grade 10-- .63 

Grade 11 --------- .60 

Grade 12 -------- . . . . . . . . -------- .56 

I 

Grade Arithmetic 

c M c M 

,61 .64 .61 �7O 

.56 .70 .66 .78 

.58 .73 .66 .75 

.45 .54 .35 .62 

Occupational level 

of parent with: 

c 

.70 

.71 

.70 

.49 

I

Reading 

+ 

M c M c 

Total senior high ..-.---9, .13 .23 .09	 .11 

— 

Grade 10 ------------------ .05 .14 .10 .18 

Grade 11 -------- .10 .04 .09 .07 

Grade 12 . ..--... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 .28 .09 ,02 

NOTE: M-Monongalia County samples; c-control samples. 

Arithmetic 

+ Reading 

M c I 

.12 .20 

I 

.10 .18 

.10 .02 

.17 .19 

I 

RELATION BETWEEN THE WRAT 

AND THE CRITERION VARIABLES 

Table 61 gives validity coefficients for the 

grcup of extreme intellectual ability. It maybe 

seen that at these levels theWRATworksreasonably wellinpredicting performance ontheStanford 

Achievement Test at both high and low ability 

levels and that further evidence of construct 

validityis presentedby the fact that thepertinent 

criterion variables correlate higher with the 

appropriate section of the WRAT. 

Less favorable results occur in therelationship of the WRAT to the Metropolitan Achievement Test for the groups drawn from the senior 

high school samples. While there insignificant 

prediction in the expected direction for the bighability samples, validities are notas bighas one 

would hope for. Of more concern is the fact that 

the Reading section of the WRAT completely fails 

to predict relevant criterion variables for the lowability group. It is true that this group is represented only by a small sample (N=25). However, modest correlations are yielded by this 

49 
--------------------------------

-------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

----------------

---------------------------

------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-------------------------

--------

Table 60. Heans and standard deviations on the WRAT, age at time of test, and grade level at


time of test for groups of “extr~me ability


WRAT Age at time Grade level Arithmetic Reading A-I-R


grade level grade level


Ability group Number
m Mean S.D. Nean S,D, 

Low ability,


grades 5-9------------ 52 5.04 1.82 5.14 1.35


High ability,


grades 5-9------------ 51 10.74 2.57 9.90 2,00


Low ability,


grades 10-12---------- 25 18.04 1.46 11.78 0.67 5.92 1.46 5.36 1.79 5.64 1.26


High ability,


grades 10-12---------- 59 16.87 1.02 11.93 0.87 12.92 0.64 13.67 1.96 13.30 1.79


NOTE: S.D.--standard deviation; A + R—Arithmetic and Reading.


Table 61. Correlation between the WRAT and selected criterion measures,. by . subtest for

groups of extreme ability


Arithmetic


Arithmetic Reading +
 Subtests of the Stanford Reading


and Metropolitan Achievement Tests 

I --1--

Low High Low High Low High


Stanford Achievement Test
 T 

Paragraph Meaning .34 .38 .61 .50 .59 .50 

Word Meaning .10 .45 .60 .64 .45 .62 

.50 1 Language .16 .57 L
.74 .42 .74

Arithmetic Reasoning and Concepts .58 .61 .38 

T

.57 .55
 .65 

Arithmetic Computation .60 .62 .24 .60 .46 .68 

Reading 

Metropolitan Achievement Test
 T

.17 .23 -.17 .41 -.02 .40 

Spelling .23 .22 .00 .64 .13 ;;: 

Language .27 .41 r.14 I.43 .26 

Mathematical Computation .06 L.26 .30 .67

Mathematical Analysis and Problem Solving .06 .28 .25
 .63

50

---

-----

sample between the Arithmetic section of the 

WRA’T and appropriate criterion variables. The 

use of the Reading section of the WRAT at the 

high school level for students of low ability must 

therefore be viewed with great caution. 

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WRAT 

AND SAT GRADE LEVEL SCORES 

A final analysis of the performance of the 

extreme ability groups concerns the discrepancy 

of grade levels as estimated by the WRAT from 

the grade level estimates provided by the group 

achievement test battery. Table 62 presents 

data on the most pertinent criterion measures. 

There seems to be a tendency for the Arithmetic 

section to underestimate the mathematics criteria. However, the magnitude of the underestimation is more serious for Arithmetic Computation than Arithmetic Reasoning and is 

probably significant only for the high-ability 

group. 

The WRAT Reading section for the highability group tends to overestimate the languagerelated skills by more than one grade level. For 

the low-ability group, however, WRAT estimates 

are quite close to the criteria for Paragraph and 

Word N4eaning, but again the WRAT overestimates 

performance on the SAT language subtest. These 

Table 62. Discrepancies between the WRAT 

grade level scores and the Stanford 

Achievement Test grade level scores, 

by subtest for groups of extreme ability 

1 I 

Low ability High ability 

group group 

SAT subtest 

Mean D Mean D 

WRATArithmetic test 

Arithmetic 

Reasoning and 

Concepts 5.33 -0.08 I 8.68 -0.39 

Arithmetic 

Computation- 5.52 -0.27 8.23 -0.74 

I WiZATReading test 

Paragraph 

Meaning ;.;; ::.;; 9.34 +1.40 

word Meaning- . . 8.84 +1.90 

Language---- - 3.74 II+1.16 9.32 +1.42 

NOTE: D—algebraic difference. 

findings are, of course, quite similarto thosereported for the total sample, and they suggest that 

the WRAT canbe consideredapplicable toextreme 

ability levels for the elementary and junior high 

school children. 

V1. CONCLUSIONS


The basic questions raised in this study involved the validity of the WRAT as a brief measure 

of school achievement and its adequacy for accurately predicting actual school performance as 

measured by conventional, comprehensive 

achievement measures. 

On the first issue it seems fair to conclude 

that the Arithmetic and Reading sections for 

both Levels I and II of the 1963 Revised Wide 

Range Achievement Test have reasonably good 

construct validity as judged by their relation to 

conventional group school achievement tests. 

While there is a considerable range in the magnitude of validity coefficients depending on the 

level and geographical region involved, there is 

sufficient evidence of substantial correlation with 

criterion measures at every age level investigated to consider the WRAT a satisfactory 

brief estimate of school achievement. 

Adequacy of the WRAT has also been investigated at extreme levels of ability, and it is concluded that the WRAT is quite satisfactory with 

high-ability students. With respect to students of 

low ability, the WRAT still seems satisfactory 

except for the use of the Reading section with 

high school students, where validity seems in 

doubt. Since the correlation of the WRAT with 

level of parental occupation is quite low, it may 

further be concluded that the test is applicable 

for children with widely differing socioeconomic 

backgrounds. 

The question of grade level placement is 

rather complex. Here the WRAT must be rated 

as varying from being satisfactory to being in 

51 
considerable error, depending on the criterion 

used and the level at which the test is applied. 

Level I of both the Reading and Arithmetic sections 

of the WRAT overestimates both actual grade level 

and achievement on criterion measures from the 

Stanford Achievement Test. The tendency for the 

WRAT to overestimate is particularly serious 

for the Reading section, and since it is found in 

various area samples it cannot be dismissed as 

being due to geographic peculiarities. 

Level II of the WRAT, on the other hand, 

tends to underestimate actual grade level but is 

quite close in predicting achievement levels on the 

Stanford Achievement and Metropolitan mathematics-related subtests. The WRAT Level 11 

Reading test overestimated actual grade level 

for the junior high students but underestimated it 

for the senior high students. Likewise, performance on the SAT was underestimated, while 

performance on the Metropolitan criterion variables was overestimated. 

Consideration of Jastak’s age norms helps in 

some instances, such as providing more accurate 

grade level assignment at the junior high school 

level, but in other instances use of his tables 

increases the reported discrepancies. 

Analysis of the interrelation between the 

WRAT Arithmetic and Reading sections and their 

—ooo 

relation to criterion variables suggests that it 

would be possible to rely upon the Reading section 

as the sole achievement estimate at the elementary 

and junior high levels. However, such reduction 

of the achievement estimate wouId seriously reduce the accuracy of the estimate for mathematicsrelated skills, particular y for the senior high 

school levels. 

Replication of our analyses for the Monongalia County samples with the geographically , 

dispersed control samples produced additional 

evidence of test validity but confirmed further 

that the grade level placement provided in the 

test manual must be used with caution, and may 

be subject to considerable geographical variation 

due to different educational policies and ability 

distributions. 

In summary, it may be suggested that the 

Arithmetic and Reading sections of the WRAT 

provide useful estimates of school achievement 

but that restandardization of raw scores and their 

grade placement equivalents on the basis of the 

Health Examination Survey data would be desirable. Such restandardization ought to provide 

separate norms for broad geographic areas and, 

to be most useful, should provide separate norms 

for various age levels. 

— 

52 
APPENDIX i 

LEVEL I OF THE WIDE RANGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST 

FORM USED IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDY 

Personal Data 

The four lines at the top of the title page should 

be carefully filled out before the test is begun. This 

section provides necessary statistical information. The 

following uniform procedures should be observed in 

completing the blanks. 

Name: Print last name first, then first name and 

=s. Never assume that you know how to spell a 

name (not even Smith). Have ~ spell or write it for you 

on the line provided on the test form. A correct name 

may save much time in filing and finding records when 

needed. 

Birthdate: Example: 10-18-1955 for October 18,1955. 

M. F.: Encircle M for male; F for female. 

Chronological Age: List completed years and months 

up to age 15 yeara, 11 months. For example, a child 

born on7-21-1957 was 6 yrs., 3mos. old on 11-15-1963. 

At 16 yrs. and almve, list age in years only, using the 

year completed on the last birthday. A.person hm on 

10-18-1943 was 19 yrs. old on 6-5-1963. 

School: Write down name of school attended at the 

time of the test. 

Grade: Enter the grade he is attending at the time of 

the examination in the case of school children. 

~ Always record the date on the teat. Example: 

10-1S-1960 for October 15, 1960. 

Examiner: Print name of person administering test. 

DO NOT COMPLETE ANY OTHER ITEMS. 

Now have the child write his name on the line 

below the little boxes on the firat page. 

Test Instructions, Level I Reading 

EJ should acquaint himself with the pronunciation 

of the words in the list. The pronunciation guide is 

provided for the examiner on page 6. The transcription 

symbols are those found in Webster’s New Collegiate 

Dictionary, The ~ may use other standard dictionaries 

or the symbols of the International Phonetic Association 

in learning to pronounce the words. 

Since this is primarily a reading test and not a 

test of speech or diction, unusual pronunciations due 

to colloquialism, foreign accent, and defective articulation are accepted as correct. An incorrect answer is 

any misreading due to improper sequence of letter 

sounds, confusion of phonetic valuea, and misplaced 

accent. 

Always begin the administration with the word 

pronunciation test (75 words). Two copies of the test 

form may be used, one for &to read from, and one 

(with personal data filled out) for ~to record on. Point 

to the first word “cat” and say Look at each word 

cayefully arm say it aloud. Begin here (point) ana YeaU 

the woras across the page so I can hear you. When you 

jinish the first line, go to the next line ana then the 

next. In the case of young children (S to 7 yrs.), each 

word should be pointed to with a pencil while —S attempta 

to read. 

Time: 10 seconds per word. 

The reading part should be administered with as 

few interruptions as pmsible. Any clesrcut response 

should be accepted and scored as either right or 

wrong. The first time an error is made, &is asked to 

say the word again. His response is scored right, if 

he corrects himself on the second trial. From then on, 

the first response is scored as either right or wrong, 

unless S spontaneously corrects the error he has 

made. — 

If the response is not clear, ~ may ask&to repeat 

the word. The ~ should not intimate, by either motion 

or emotion, that he is dissatisfied with the answers, 

Spontaneous corrections are credited, but teaching, 

coaching, or questioning should be avoided. 

The reading speed may be controlled by — E. Saying

“next” at the end of the time limit of 10 sec. is one 

way of controlling the rate of performance. Refusals 

to read within time limits should not always be accepted 

as evidence of failure. If& hesitates or says “I don’t 

know this word”, ~ should encourage~ to try the word 

anyway or “take a guess” at it. 

53 
Testing Limits: 12 consecutive failures, 

Recording. 

a.	 Underline the first letter if the word is correctly pronounced. Example: ~t, ~lock. 

b.	 Cross out the firat letter of the mispronounced 

word. Example: #at, Mock. 

c. If& first mispronounces the word, then corrects 

his	 error, cross out the first letter and underline the second letter of the word. Example 

g!!t, J&ock. Score right. 

d.	 If& first pronounces the word correctly, then 

mispronounces it, underline the first letter and 

cross out the second letter of the word. Example 

2A, ~~ock. Score wrong. 

On the reading test, some~s tend to skim over the 

words or produce a response that sounds superficially 

correct. The & should he alert to these near successes 

and score them wrong, or ask ~ to repeat if no clearcut decision can be made. 

Examples of such near successes are: 

bl~k for bl?k, &ksk5p for &k5p, h;m;~t! for 

hi!im%t~, k;ntem/fwri for k&&porari, ak&?’for ;l’k~v, 

k&&mpiius for k&&mpd&, ben?~or I&@ pr5t&&r?ms 

for pr6tG&%ns, s~ntri’f!g~l for .&try%gal, ab?~m% 

for ab;zfnal, s%~ngkt for s;ks~ngkt~ etc. 

Pre-Reading Section 

Whenever failures occur in the first line of the 

reading test, the three pre-reading parts of the subtest are administered as follows: 

letter? or What is this letter? And this one? 

(pointing to the next letter). The ~ may stop 

after the second correctly named letter. 

Time: 10 seconds per letter 

Recording: Underline letter correctly named or recognized, cross out letter incorrectly identified or named 

within time limits. 

Level l–Pronuciation Guide for Reading Test 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

-7/. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21, 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

cat ............... ........ k~t


to ....... .......... ....... tm


see ...................... sE


book ..................... &X5k


big ....................... b~g


eat ..................... .. Et


was ...................... W8Z


red ...................... rid


him ...................... him


letter . .................. WZr


open ..................... G’p&


how .. .................... hou


then . .................... th%


deep, .................... d~p


work .................... w&k


jar .... .................. jar


awake ........ ........... &_wtik/


size .................. ... siz


spell .................... sp~l


lip... .................... l?p


block .... ................ bldk


weather ................ w&h@r


even .... ................. ~’vgn


finger ................... fing’g=r


should,., ............... sho”i%


cliff .......... ........... kflf


felt . ..................... f:lt


stalk .................... st~k


tray ..................... trZ


huge .................. ... hiij


approve ................ &prtiv’


lame, ................... Eim


plot ...................... pl&


struck .................. strfik


quality . ................. kw:l{ d


sour ..................... sour


urge ..................... lirj


abuse . .................. &Ubiiz’or ~biis’


collapse ................ k~ l~ps’


exhaust ................. 14g2W


bulk.,..., ........ ....... b$ku “


residence .............. re;}~wdgns


clarify .................. klar’~fi


humidity ............... l$m?d~t~


imply ................... nil plz’


quarantine . ............ kw;rl~n tEn


threshold .............. thr&h@ld OY thr&h’hi51d


1. 

2. 

3. 

Naming 13 letters: Say, Reau these letters 

abut. what is this or What do you call this? 

(Point to the firat letter in the second row of 

capital letters printed above the word Iisti A 

B O, etc.) Point to each letter consecutively 

as S reads them. 

Time: 10 seconds per letter 

Recognizing 10 letters: Cover the word list 

with a sheet of paper, point to the first letter 

(A) in the top row on page 4 of the test form and 

say Fins! one just Like this mum here (pointing 

to the row of letters underneath). The instructions may be repeated if necessary. Each letter 

should be pointed to. 

Time: 10 seconds per letter 

Two letters in name: Point to the first letter 

in the name which ~ has written on page one 

of the test form and say: What do you call this 

54 
48. 

49. 

50, 

51. 

52. 

53. 

54. 

55. 

56, 

57, 

58, 

59. 

60, 

61. 

62, 

63, 

64. 

65, 

66. 

67. 

68. 

69. 

70. 

71, 

72. 

73. 

74, 

75. 

glutton ..... ............. 

recession ....... ....... 

participate ............ 

horizon ....... .......... 

emphasis ... .......... . 

aeronautic.., .......... 

intrigue... ........... .. 

luxurious .............. 

endeavor ............... 

persevere ........ ..... 

rescinded . ............ 

discretionary ......... 

mitosis ... ..... ........ 

repugnant .............. 

putative.,,,..., ........ 

rudimentary.. ........ 

heresy .................. 

usurp ................... 

novice .................. 

audacious .............. 

anomaly ... ............ 

seismograph.., ....... 

idiosyncrasy .......... 

itinerary,, ............. 

spurious ............... 

miscreant ............. 

aborigines ............. 

pseudonym ............ 

Level i-Arithmetic 

This test is composed of an oral and a written 

part. The oral part of the subtest consists ok 

1. Counting 15 dots . .... ... .... .... ... ... ... ... .... .. ... .. .... .. .. ... .... 8 points 

& Reading 5 digitq. . ... .... ... ..... ... ... .... ... ... ... .. ... ... .. .. .... ... 5 ,s 

3. Showing 3and8fingers ... .. ... ... .... .. ... .... .. . ... .... ... ..... ... 2 “ 

4. Tellirrg which numlrerismorw90r6; 420r 28 ..... .. . .. ..... 2 “ 

fi. Tbraoorrdaddition mrdsubtmction probkams . .... .... . ... ... . 8 “ 

20 points 

The written part consists of 43computationprobIems. 

Test Instructions: 

Begin the testing with the written computations. 

In examining young children (5 to 7 yrs.) point to the 

first problem ( 1 + 1 = ) and say: Read this. If the 

problem, including the signs, is read correctly, ask: 

PIwhat is the answer?’ When the answer is given, saY 

WYite it uor.on on this line. Then say: Now reaa this 

(pointing to 4 - 1 = ) am @t the answer. on the Line 

(point). Next read this (pointing to 6 + 2) andput the 

answer unaev the line. Then reart all the other pYoblems in this YOUI(pointing) arut uwite your answers on 

OY untter the lines. 

000 

If the child is unable to read the first problem 

(1 + 1 =), discontinue the written part and administer 

the oral parts according to the instructions outlined 

below. 

Children of ages 5 to 7 yrs. and persons who 

obtain a score of less than 7 points on the written part, 

are given the oral parts of the subtest. 

1.	 Counting 15 dots: Point to the dots printed at 

the top of page 2 of the test form and say: 

Point with youY finger ana count these sots one 

by one beginning here (~’s left) and going this 

way (moving to the right, motion). Count them 

aloud so I can hear you and tell me how many 

dots there are. 

2.	 Reading Numbers 3, 5, 6, 17, 41: Point to the 

numbers (printed upside down on the form) and 

say: Reaa these numbeys. What is this? (pOitlting to the 3). Arm this. Etc. 

3.	 Showing Fingers: Say Show me 3 fingers. Show 

we 8 fingers. 

4.	 Telling Which Number is More: Say: Which is 

more, 9 OY 6? Which is more, 42 OY28 ? 

5.	 Add and Subtract: Ask: (a) If you have 3 pennies and spend 1 of them, how many have you 

Left? (b) How many are 3 apples and 4 apples? 

(c) Jack haa 9 marbles. He lost 3 of them. How 

many were left? 

Time Limits: 10 minutes for page of written computations. 

1 minute for counting 15 dota. 

1 minute for reading atl five numbers. 

1 minute for showing fingers (both problems). 

1. minute for telling which is more 

(both problems). 

1 minute for each of the three oral 

problems. 

Recordimz Oral Parh 

Counting dots —underline the last number correctly counted and pointed to. Reading numbers, Showing fingers, Which is more, and Solving problemsunderline numbers on form if correc~ cross them out 

if incorrect. 

DO NOT SCORE WRITTEN PART. 

CumuL 

Answer Key - Arithmetic, Level I Points 

Oral Park Counts 15 dots, 1 point for each of tbe following 

1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-13, 1415 . ..... .. .... . 8 

Reada 5 numbers. . 5 pts. Fingsrs. .2 pa... ... .... 15 

Which is more. .2 pts. Answera toproblems:2 78... 20 

55 
APPENDIX II 

LEVEL II OF THE WIDE RANGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST


FORM USED IN THE JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDIES


Personal Data 

The four lines at the top of the title page should 

be carefully filled out before the test is begun. This 

section provides necessary statistical information. 

The following uniform procedures should be observed 

in completing the blanks. 

-. Print last name first, then first name and 

initials. Never assume that you know how to spell a 

name (not even Smith). Have ~ spell or write it for 

you on the line provided on the test form. A correct 

name may save much time in filing and finding records 

when needed. 

Birthdate: Example: 10-18-1955 for October 18,1955. 

M. F.: Encircle M for male; F for female. 

Chronological Age: List completed years and months 

Up to age 15 yrs., 11 mos. For example, a child born 

on 7-21-1957 was 6 yrs., 3 mos. old on 11-15-1963. 

At 16 yrs. and ahove, list age in years only, using the 

year completed on the last birthday. A person born 

on 10-18-1943 was 19 yrs. old on 6-5-1963. 

School: Write down name of school attended at the time 

of the test. 

Grade: Enter the grade he is attending at the time of 

the examination in the case of school children. 

Date: Always record the date of the test. Example: 

=5-1960 for October 15, 1960. 

Examiner: Print name of person administering test. 

DO NOT COMPLETE ANY OTHER ITEMS. 

Now have the child write his name on the line below the little boxes on the first page. 

Reading Instructions 

Before administering this test, study the pronunciation guide on page 5. The transcription synhls are 

those found in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. 

The ~ may use other standard dictionaries or the 

symlmls of the International Phonetic Association in 

learning to pronounce the words. 

Since this is primarily a reading test and not a test 

of speech or diction, unusual pronunciations due to 

colloquialism, foreign accent, and defective articulation 

are accepted as correct. An incorrect answer ia any 

misreading due to improper sequence of letter sounds, 

confusion of phonetic values, and misplaced accent. 

Always begin the administration with the word 

pronunciation test (74 words). Two copies of the test 

form may be used, one for -& to read from, and one 

(with personal data filled out) for ~ to record on. Point 

to the first word “in” and say: Look at each woya 

cayefilly and say it abua. Be@”nheye (point)and Yeaa 

the woras acyoss the page so I can heav you. When 

you f?nish the j%st line, go on to the next line anti then 

the next. In the case of young children (5 to 7 yrs.), each 

word should be pointed to with a pencil while S attempts 

to read. 

T- 10 seconds per word. 

The reading part should be administered with as 

few interruptions as possible. Any clearcut response 

should be accepted and scored as either right or wrong. 

The first time an error is made, &is asked to say the 

word again. His response is scored right, if he corrects 

himself on the second trial. From then on, the first 

response is scored as either right or wrong, Unless ~ 

spontaneously corrects the error he has made. 

If the response is not clear, E may ask ~ to repeat the word. The ~ should not %tirnate, by either 

motion or emotion, that he is dissatisfied with the 

answers. Spontaneous corrections are credited, but 

teaching, coaching, or questioning should be avoided. 

The reading speed may be controlled by E. Saying 

“next” at the end of the time limit of 10 sec. is one 

way of controlling the rate of performance. Refusals 

to read within the time limits should not always be 

accepted as evidence of failure. If ~ hesitates or says 

“I don’t know this word,” ~ should encourage ~ to try 

the word anyway or “take a guess” at it, 

Testing Limits: 12 consecutive failures. 

56 
Recording: 17. contemporary ..... 

18. toughen. a.	 Underline the first letter if the word is cor- 19. 

rectly pronounced. Example: $at, Qlock. 20. 

b.	 Cross out the first letter of the mispronounced 21. 

word. Example: cat, flock. 22. 

23. 

c, If ~ first mispronounces the word, then cor- 24. 

rects his error, cross out the first letter and 25. 

underline the second letter of the word. Example: 26. 

$&, Mock. Score right 27. 

d.	 If ~ first pronounces the word correctly, then 28. 

mispronounces it, underline the first letter 29. 

and cross out the second letter of the word. 30. 

Example: @, l&ck. Score wrong. 31. 

32. 

On the reading test, some~s tend to skim over the 33. 

words or produce a response that sounds superficially 34. 

correct. The ~ should be alert to these near successes 35. 

and score them wrong, or ask ~ to repeat if no clear- 36. 

cut decision can be made. 37. 

Examples of such near successes are: 38. 

39. 

bl~k for bldk, ~kskZip for &kZp, h~m%% for 40. 

hikm~l%t~,k&tem’pri for k&W~m$orari, akav’for &5v, 41. 

42. 

k&t8mpiius for k&&mpt&, ben~~or b$n~n(prZi&&%s 43. 

for pr75tlib’&%ns, s&tri’ f~g~l for s&tr;fkgal, ab~s’m~l 44. 

45. 

for ab;z(nal, s%?ngkt for s~ks%gkt( etc. 46. 

Pre-Word Level: 47. 

48.


If & obtains a score of 10 points or less in the 49.


regular reading part, he should be asked to name the 50.


13 capital letters printed above the word list and 51.


to name at least 2 letters in his name which he has 52.


written or printed on the line provided on the first page 53.


of the test form. One point is assigned for each of the 54.


2 letters in his name and the 13 letters to be identified. 55.


56. 

Level n-Pronunciation Guide for Reading Tesf 57. 

58. 

1. in .. .. . .. . ... . . .. .. .. .. % 59. 

2, milk.., ..... ......... m~lk 60. 

3. tree..,,., ............ tr~ 61. 

4. city .................. s%’? 62. 

5, animal .............. ~~’~ m~l 63. 

6. himself ............. him s~lf’ 64. 

7, between ............. bi$UtwFn’ 65. 

8.	 chin..., ........ ...... chin 66. 

9, split ................. splY.t 67. 

10.	 grunt . ... ............ gftint 68. 

11, form ................. form 69. 

12. stretch,, ........... . str~ch 70. 

13. aboard ., ............ & bi5rd’ 71. 

14. theory,.., ........... thiX!ir? 72. 

1S. escape .............. & k=p’ OY ?S k=p’ 73. 

16. grieve ............... gr~v 74. 

............ 

contagious ......... 

ethics ...... ......... 

image ............... 

triumph ...... ....... 

conspiracy ......... 

eliminate ........... 

rancid ............... 

tranquility ........ 

deny ......... ........ 

humiliate .. ......... 

alcove . ......... ..... 

scald.. .. ............ 

municipal ......... . 

desolate .... ........ 

mosaic .............. 

bibliography ....... 

unanimous ......... 

decisive .. .. ........ 

contemptuous ..... 

predatory .......... 

benign .......... ..... 

deteriorate .... .... 

protuberance ... ... 

stratagem . ......... 

regime .............. 

predilection ....... 

prevalence ......... 

irascible... ........ 

peculiarity ......... 

abysmal .... .. . ..... 

pugilist ............ . 

soliloquize ......... 

enigmatic .......... 

centrifugal . ........ 

emaciated ... ....... 

oligarchy ........... 

covetousness ...... 

“ingratiating ........ 

coercion ............ 

vehemence ......... 

sepulcher .... ...... 

longevity.. .... . .... 

evanescence ....... 

beneficent .......... 

subtlety .. ... ........ 

succinct .......... .. 

beatify ... ........... 

regicidal.. ......... 

schism .............. 

heinous ............. 

desuetude .......... 

egregious .......... 

misogyny ........... 

internecine ........ 

synecdoche ........ 

ebullience .......... 

k&Nt~m’p6 r~r~


tuf En


k~n tZ’j&


$&s


im+’j


tr~timf


$$ s)p#~ ST


e lim ~nat


&#s~d


tr%n kw$l~ ~ or tr%ng kw~l~ t!


d~n~~,Y_


hh mil I at


til’kav


sk$ld


mti n%’!’ p~l


dgs’b If


m* Z2?K


b?b’l? ~g’rkl f~


tiLn!$,P+mt&


de si SIV


k& t~mp’~ &


pr~d’tj tE ri


b$n~’


d$ ti+~ 6 rZit


prh tii’b~r !ns


str% ‘Aj&m


r~ zh=m’


pr=’d~ l~~shfin


pr~v’~ l~ns


~ r%st~ b’1 ov !-


J. _, Yu/YQ
 pe ku h ar Atl


Q b!z’m$h


pii’j!l’fs;


S6 $6 ‘kw~z


? nig m%YYkor % ‘lg m%’?k


s~n tr!f$_g~


$ m~’shi at ed


~1’~gar k~


$V{_&sUn$sv


in gra’shi Zt mg


k~ fir’shin


vG’~ m&s


s~p’~1 k~u


$? Jev/1 ti


ev &n& &s


be n~f$ s!%t


s~tl’luu


s& singktj


b$ ~J’l_f$u


r~j &sid @


siz’m


hX%&


d~s’w$ tiid


$K;j$%”;r ~ ,­
 am%%tnl


in ter & /6yn


s. n~k’d~ k~ 

$ b~l~ ~ns 

57 
Arithmetic–Level [1 

Instructions: Say: This is an. aytthmetic test. Tunr. to 

page 3 where it says Arithmetic, Level II and look at 

the problems printed below the heavy line (hold test 

form up and point). Ita like to know how many of the 

pyoblems on this page you can figu?-e out. Look at each 

problem carefully to see what you are supposeu to 

do - add, subtyact, multiply, or divide - and then put 

down yowv answer in the space on or undeY the lines. 

Should you wish to figure on the paper, you may use 

the empty spaces or the margins to write on. Finst 

do the top YOW, then the second yew, then the third row, 

etc. The problems get moye dijjlcult as you go down 

the page. Don’t spend too much time on any one pYoblem. You can skip a problem if it is too dij%xlt joy you, 

but do as many as you can one by one. You will have 

10 minutes. Now, go ahead and do as many as you can. 

T= 10 minutes for page of computations. 

IX) NOT SCORE RESULTS. 

Oral Arithmetic-Level II 

Any person obtaining less than five points in the 

written part must be given the oral part as follows: 

1.	 Counting 15 dots: Point to the dots printed at 

the top of page 2 of the test form and sav:.- Point with you; fingey ancz count these dots one 

by one beginning heye @’s left) and going this 

way (moving to the right). Count them aloud so 

I can hear you and .&& me how many dots 

there aye. 

(On top of page check once for correct count 

from 1 to 6 and again for correct count from 6 

to 15.) 

2.	 Reading numbers 3, 5, 6, 17, 41: Point to the 

numbers (printed upside down on page 2 of the .- test form) and say: Read these numbers, What 

is this? (Pointing to 3) And this? Etc. 

3.	 Solving three problems: Ask: (a) If you have 

thyee pennies and spend one of them, how many 

have you left? (b) How many are three apples 

and fww apples? (c] Jack had nine marbles. He 

lost three of them. HOWmany were lejt? 

(Record answers to questions a, b, and c at 

the top of the test form page.) 

ooo — 

58 
APPENDIX Ill 

PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING IN THE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Project DivectoY 

K. Warner Schaie, Ph.D. 

Project SecYetary 

Margaret D. Auberle 

Resea~ch Assistants 

Ronald Bone, A.B.


Don Simons


Claude Southerly, M.A.


Barbara Stone, A.B.


Field Testing Consultants 

Ruth Camp, M.A. (Morgantown, W. Vs.)


John Ivanoff, Ph.D. (Milwaukee, Wis.)


Seymour Levitan, Ph.D. (Los Angeles, Calif.)


Naomi A. Patterson, Ph.D. (Fort-Collins, Colo.)


Examiners 

MONONGALIA COUNTY, W. VA.


Clay -Battelle Group


Join Clovis (in charge)


Anne Barr


Robert Beach


Linda Bosley


Virginia Bunner


Carillon Copeland


Margie Fox


Patricia Lowry


Felix Lunghi


Fred Miller


Michael Resetar


William Sanders


Kent Staggers


William Sterling


Bonnie Tennant


Gladys White


Huey Wilson


Central Group


Vivian Price (in charge)


Margaret Brand


Eleanor Collins


Maxine Glover


Eleanor Henry


Katherine Reed


Cheat Lake Group


Harold Pickens (in charge)


Patricia Baker


Ronald Colovincenzo


Thomas W. Cobun


Mabel B. Harrah


John Kapsaroff


Jane Lemley


Mary McGregor


Elaine Shale


William Spangler


First Ward Group


William F. Cunningham (in charge)


Ethel Bagshaw


Marguerite Franklin


Julia Frum


Daun Johnson


Virginia Long


Carol Mayle


Thelma Morgan


Dorotha Morris


Ruth Morton


Irene Mossburg


Virginia Pixler


Pauline Trickett


Mildred Williams


Westover Group


Mrs. Sylva Fetty (in charge)


Mrs. L. Douglas Cumutte


Mrs. William Fournier


Elizabeth J. Hall


Anne Heiskell


59 
Mrs. Claude Kemper


Mrs. C. N. Rosenecker


W. E. Spangler


University High Group


Michael Caruso


Wayne G. Baker


Allen R. Bryant


Gloria J. Cunningham


Janet D. Callahan


Sara E. Logan


David Loughrie


William P. Hawley


Lillie W. Morgan


Richard N. Ryan


Joseph P. Talerico


Darrel E. Wood


FORT COLLINS, COLO.


Dick DeCook


John Dyck


Karen Gabbert


Michael Gaynor


Joel Gold


Dal Hedlund


Al Hinkle


Bill Jones


Anita Leighton


Robert Leighton


Larry Motzkus


60


Joan Muser 

Marilyn Rhodes 

James L. Sheard 

Lowell Wilson 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, cALIF, 

Kerby Alvy


Maureen Behrens


G. William Domhoff


Carol Grieshaber


Richard Mach


Frank E. Webb


MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WIS. 

Sara Derman 

Charles Droege 

D. Enders 

James HanIon 

Margaret A. Hendricks 

Joanne Ivanoff 

Helen Kilgore 

Ame Nesbit 

Dianne Perone 

Lalia Peterson 

Lois Schaper 

Demis Scbrank 

S. B. Schultz 

Maribeth Schultz 

* U.S. GOVERIIMEHT PRINTING OWICC t 1S67 0-244-201 
OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

SeTies 1.	 l+ogra?ns and collection pvoceduYes.— Keports which describe the general programs of the National 

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, 

and other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Se3-ies 2. Data evaluation and methods reseavch. —Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical 

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory. 

Series 3.	 Analytical st?ufzes. -Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health 

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

SeYies 4.	 Documents and committee reports. — Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and 

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth 

and death certificates. 

Series 10.	 Data from the Health InteYview Survey. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of 

hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected 

in a continuing national household interview survey. 

Series 11.	 Data from the Health Examination Survey. — Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimates 

of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions of 

the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) 

analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an explicit finite 

universe of persons. 

Series 12.	 Data fyom the Institutional Population Surveys.— Statistics relating to the health characteristics of 

persons in institutions, and on medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national 

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients. 

Series 13.	 Data from the Hospital Dischavge .Swvey. —Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay 

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals. 

Series 20.	 Data on moytality. —Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly 

reports— special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic 

and time series analyses. 

Series 21.	 Data on natality, rnam-iage, and divovce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other 

than as included in annual or monthly reports— special analyses by demographic variables, also 

geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility. 

Series 22.	 Data from the National Natality and kfo~tality Surveys. — Statistics on characteristics of births and 

deaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these records, 

including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year of 

life, characteristics of pregnancy, etc. 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: mfice of Information 

National Center for Health Statistics 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Washington, D.C. 20201