Technical Report 625 (

A Theory-Based Approach

to Reading Assessment in the Army

Rebecca L. Oxford-Carpenter

Linda J. Schultz-Shiner

Selection and Classification Technical Area

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

C=

July 1984

Aro0rov~d lot oubI.C Woes1 dIt,.bvt,o.'uflm.,

Best Available Copy 85 12 2 • 0
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel, IN

"Technical Director Commander

Technical Reviews by

Joan Harman

Judith Orasanu

Paul Rossmeissl

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report be& been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution ot reports tot U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ATTNt

PERI-POT, 5OO1 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION, This report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

needed. Please do not return It to the U.S. Army Research institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE:t The finding% In this reporv are no? to be: construed a* a" otticlat

Department of th6 Army position, unless so designated by other authorlsed

documents.
UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (1len Dole, BZveerm)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER 1Z. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3- RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMNER

Technical Report 625 lAD -A 16,2_ 4. TITLEYPE O REPORT 6 PEO COVERE

A Theory-Based Approach to Reading Assessment

in the Army 6 . PERFORMING ONG. REPORT NUMBER

. auT*OC.s 8. CONTRACTOR GTRANT NUMBER&)

Rebecca L. Oxford-Carpenter & Linda J.

Schultz-Shiner

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANo AOORESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & AREA &ORK UNIT MUMS

Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 2Q263731A791

Alexandria, VA 22333 -5600

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO AOORESS 12. REPORT OATS

1 July 1984

IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

27

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A AOORESS(It di.ermt 1000 CeaIrellf Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of Ow/e repore)

UNCLASSISFIED

IS& OECLASSIFICATION/O WNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. OIST.'iUTION STATEMENT (eo che A lepowt)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

I?. OISTRISUTION STATEMENT (*I the aboaict eatroid R. ioee ". Of d•ltert 601 R 'epef)

I1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WOROS (Coi..nue on etevc, *Odi It necomeey id I•d*Ulfy by lee• sm~c)

Assessment; Reading assessment, Reading theory; Army testing; ASVAB; Rcadiag,

comprehension; Reading tests; Reading test scores; Grade equivalent scores

24. AMTRACr (Cmthmoe amei relwo oft Ofneareey an Ideafltp by Meshk nmal.)

-. This report addresses practical Army problems in reading assessment from a

- theory base that reflects the most recent and most sound research on reading

comprehension. Six major concl-tveons are drawn from both theory and pruL1.t.

>r'--. -!ing &Is lipurtant in military and civilian work life. Second, reading assessment is a highly visible and important issue in the Army. Third,

Leading theories--especially the new interactive-inferential theory--can " ~~positively influence reading messur-..ent practices in the Army. Fourth, /

DDI J• 7 147 siO" Or 1 NOW ISIS @OGOL.I. Ti UNCTSIFIED

SECUORTY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When DeeG ERleIO)
- <,. .

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 09 THIS PAGO(When DOe Entemr*

Item 20 (Continued)

-,,reading tests are not all alike; they differ widely in terme of psychometric

characteristics and overall quality as evaluated using theory-based standards.

Fifth, high correlations exist between the Arred Services Vocational Aptitude

Battery (ASVAB) and various reading tests, although caution needs to be exercised in using any part of the ASVAB as a reading-test surrogate. Sixth,

alternatives to grade equivalent scores are available and should be considered

for Army use.

Z I,

BN

-4

SECUi -- U OCLA&SSIFIED "• ~ S SC U N $T 'V C • A S $ 1i C A T1TI N O P T wIS p AL6 g ( 3 H O a t. E .'.. P . E)
"Technical Report 625

A Theory-Based Approach

to Reading Assessment in the Army

Rebecca L. Oxford-Carpenter

Linda J. Schultz-Shiner

Submitted by

Newell K. Eaton, Chief

Selection and Classification Technical Area

Approved as technically adequate

and submitted for publication by

Joyce L. Shields, Director

Manpower and Personnel

Research Laboratory

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

July 1984

Army Project Number Manpower and Personnel Research

"20263731 A791

Appraoed for pubic rei e; dstnbution unlifated

ii

S. .. .. .. ... .. -.... " "";...... . "• "" l'- "i - Y - -- "-";
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recomrmendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv

- -- •- • .. o ° , -

-*L
FOREWORD

The Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory of the U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducts research in

areas related to manpower and personnel issues. One key issue is reading

performance of Army soldiers as shown through reading; assessment. Reading

assessment has become an important problem not just for training but also for

personnel selection and classification. This report addresses Army reading

assessment from a theory base that is both current and useful. The research

was conducted under ARI Project Number 2Q263731A791. The information reported

here will be helpful to policymakera and scientists concerned with military

selection, classification, training, and education.

EDGAR 14. JOHNSO01

Technical Director

tV
A THEORY-BASED APPROACH TO READING ASSESSMENT IN THE ARMY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iI

Requirement:

To address practical Army problems in reading assessment from a theory

base that reflects the most recent and most sound research on reading S~comprehension.

Procedure:

Specific aspects of the Army reading assessment problem were identified.

The most current and relevant reading theory and its implications for reading

assessment in general were then explained. Finally, the relationship of those

implications to Army reading assessment was described.

Findings:

Six major conclusions are drawn from both theory and practice. First,

reading is important in military and civilian work life. Second, reading

assessment is a highly visible and important issue in the Army. Third,

reading theories, especially the new interactive-inferential theory, can

positively influence reading measurement practices in the Army. Fourth,

reading tests differ widely in terms of psychometric characteristics and

overall quality as evaluated by theory-based standards. Fifth, the Armed

Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and various reading tests have a

high correlation, although caution needs to be exercised in suostituting any

part of the ASVAB for a reading test. Sixth, alternatives to grade ecsuivalent

scores are available and should be considered for use in the Army.

Utilization of Findings:

This report has utility for Army selection, classification, training, and

education. The findings may also be helpful to other military services concerned with reading assessment issues.

vii

_.. .. . . . . .................. °-" . " . "'. ""•" " ". ".•. .-. '..
A THEORY-BASED APPROACH TO READING ASSESSMENT IN THE ARMY

CONTENTS

Page

READING IS IMPORTANT IN MILITARY AND CIVILIAN WORK LIFE . . . . . . . . 1

READING ASSESSMENT IS IMPORTANT IN THE ARMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

THREE TYPES OF READING THEORIES ARE EXAMINED. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Perceptual-Cognitive Theory Involves Strategies . . . . . . . . . 2

Information Processing Theories Analyze Reading Components . . . . 3

Interactive-Inferential Theory Provides a New Perspective . . . . 3

Summary of Theories. . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PSYCHOM1ETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AVAILABLE TESTS DIFFER . ........ . 6

Armed Services Have Used Commercial Reading Tests ... ........ . 6

Armed Forces Have Developed Their Own Reading Tests ...... ....... 7

ASVAB SCORES ARE CORRELATED WITH READING TEST SCORES . . . .... . 8

GRADE EQUIVALENT SCORES CAN BE MISLEADING . ............. 9

SIX MAJOR CONCLUSIONS ARE REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 10

REFEREINCES .......... ............................ . . . . . . .. . 11

APPENDIX ............................... .. 15

ix

R~i-:...-;.-.:-:.;-.-i-.;..-..................................................................................................-------.." S...... .• ........ ........................... ;...--................................................."."....."..:"- ...-. ".-...."" $ " .."
A THEORY-BASED APPROACH

TO READING ASSESSMlENT IN THE ARMY

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(ARI) has been involved in research on reading assessment in the Army from

both practical and theoretical perspectives. The purpose of this paper is to

address practical Army problems in reading assessment from a theory base that

reflects the most recent and most sound research on reading comprehension.

This paper has seven sections. The first two sections, which concern the importance of reading in work life and the importance of Leading assessment in

the Army, provide the basis for addressing the overall issue of reading assessment in the Army. The reading theories presented in the third section are

helpful in generating evaluative criteria for reviewing potential measures of

reading for Army use. In the fourth and fifth sections, three categories of

measures are considered: civilian, military, and the special case of the

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)--a military test of general

cognitive ability with potential value as a surrogate reading measure. The

sixth section deals with scoring issues that need to be addressed no matter

what measure is used. The final section offers conclusions based on both

theory and practice.

READING IS IMPORTANT IN MILITARY AND CIVILIAN WORK LIFE

Military research on reading has shown that reading is an important part

of military life. Sacher and Duffy (1978) found that military workers' overall job performance suffered if they read more than two grade levels below job

demands. Sticht (1980) observed a low generalizability of general reading

skills to specific literacy tasks in the military and emphasized the need for

job-related reading tests. Sticht (1982) also investigated empirical relations between reading proficiency and job proficiency in the mil itary setting

and found that the armed services pose demands for basic skills equal to or

greater than those of civilian jobs. Even with higher enlistment standards,

many military recruits are below a%.rage in basic skills, including not only

reading but also other skills. However, Sticht (1982) found that basic skills

competence as measured by a variety of tests did not appear to be the overriding determinant of success in the military. The precise relationship between reading skills and job skills needs further investigAtion.

In addition to military research, civilian research may have some implications for Army literacy. Diehl and Mikulecky (1980) observed 100 workers

representing a cross-section of occupations and found that 90% of the workers

participated in some form of reading each day. In a later study, Mikulecky

(1982) compared high school reading to work reading and found that students

read less for school than most workers did for work. Workers read more often

for application or to make judgments, while students read to gather facts.

Mikulecky and Strange (in preparation) noted that the workplace calls for a

wider range of literacy strategies than does school literacy, 95% of which is

based on textbooks. These civilian research results may, by implication,

underscore the importance of reading in many, if not all, military jobs.

." .
READING ASSESSMENT IS IMPORTANT IN THE ARMY

In the last few years reading assessment has become a key issue in the

Army primarily because of changes in the reading ability levels of the Army

population. Population shifts are, in turn, related to a multitude of factors, such as changes in the national economic picture and variations in

norming of the ASVAB used for Army selection and classification. In recent

years the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), the Forces Command (FORSCOM),

the Education Directorate of The Adjutant General's Office (TAGO), and the

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) have all turned to

ARI for practical advice on reading assessment. For example, both TRADOC and

PORSCOM have asked for ARI's help in measuring the reading level of noncommissioned officers (NCOs). TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity (TRASANA) has

requested assistance in interpreting its data on reading tests of officers and

enlisted personnel. TRADOC is currently establishing a program to improve

officers' communication skills and has asked for ARI's advice on the use of

reading tests as part of thi program. TAGO is funding an ARI project, known

as the Job Skills Education Program (JSEP), a computer-based effort that involves the assessment of job-oriented basic skills. ARI has also advised

ODCSPER on the difficulties of using reading as a reenlistment criterion for

midterm noncommissioned officers.

Army agencies often ask the following questions about reading assessment: *What reading tests can we use?' 'What do our reading test scores

mean?* and 'Since ASVAB scores relate to reading test scores, can the ASVAB be

used as a substitute for a reading measure?' Recent requests for assistance

have not focused on the more central question, 'How does reading proficiency

relate to job proficiency?" The last question--perhaps the most crucial question for Army reading assessment--is an empirical one that research has not

yet answered adequately. However, both theory and research provide answers to

the first three questions. Before addressing these questions in detail, we

will summarize several key types of reading theories and indicate their implications for reading assessment.

THREE TYPES OF READING THEORIES ARE EXAMINED

Many theories of reading exist. One theory unites perceptual and cognitive elements. A second set of theories relates to information processing.

A third theory, the most recent, concerns inferencing in an interactive mode.

We will describe the essence of these theories and their implic•cions for

reading assessment. The greatest emphasis is on the last theory because of

its major implications for reading assessment.

Perceptual-Cognitive Theory Involves Strategies

Gibson and Levin (1975) presented a theory that is both perceptual and

cognitive. Although they stressed most heavily the perceptual underpinnings

of the reafl:;y proocess, these researchers also indicated that psychological

processes of mature reading go far beyond perception to remembering, problem

solving, and cl A:•nization of conceptual knowledge for better extraction of

2
I

meaning. Two implications of perceptual-cognitive theory for reading assessment are (1) the cognitive strategies that help people improve their reading

can also be used to help people perform better on reading tests, and (2) these

strategies are not innate but can be taught.

Information Processing Theories Analyze Reading Components

As noted by Carpenter and Just (in preparation), inforration processing

is characterized by efforts to understand what information is represented in

memory, what information is acquired, how -rocesses are acquired ane invoked,

how long these processes take, and what sources of error exist. A major contribution of information processing theory is that it acknowledges the role of

environment (not just previously acquired knowledge and thought patterns) in

explaining reading behavior. The information processing model of Sticht, Beck,

Hauke, Kleiman, and James (1974) emphasizes the interaction between the environment and cognitive components such as sensory information storage, shortterm memory, and long-term memory to generate literacy skills. Massaro's

(1975) information processing model of reading delineates four component

processes or stages between the language stimulus and the meaning response:

feature detection (sensation), primary recognition (perception), secondary

recognition (conception), and recoding and rehearsal. Information processing

analyzes reading into component processes; however, the parts are not always

easily reconstituted into the reading act (Carpenter & Just, in preparation).

Information processing theory is now being used in computer-reading simulations, in which successful computer programs must have a great deal of "knowledge' about vocabulary, language structure, and the topic of the text. Carpenter and Just (in preparation) described some recent computer simulations of

reading based on information processing.

Information processing theories of reading have some implications for

reading assessment. First, these theories imply that environment and shortand long-term memory are very important in the reading process and that therefore reading is not a simple thing to measure. Second, one application of

information processing theory (that of Sticht et al., 1974) has shown that

reading tests need to be functional (i.e., related to the person's environment) for results to be most meaningful.

Interactive-Inferential Theory Provides a New Perspective

Although the emerging reading theory lacks a consistent, descriptive

name, we will call it interactive-inferential theory. This theory builds

largely on the information processing model but alro goes beyond it by

demonstrating the interaction between higher order, interpretive, metacognitive processes and less complex processes. Interactive-inftrential theory

focuses on interactive rather than linear movement in reading and has generated a spate of research that centers on reading comprehension instead of

decoding. We devote more time to interactive-inferentia. theory than to

earlier theories, because it offers a more Oevolved' view and a numoer of

implications for reading assessment. According to this theory, reading (1) is

an active process in which the reader constructs meaning through inference and

interpretation, (2) is purposeful and hence involves motivation, (3) can be

3
' 7, ,r . . . )O't ,-. V'-_. ,- -. -

improved through use of cognitive and learning strategies, (4) is processed by

the individual through interactions among several levels of information, and

(5) can be divided into a set of subskills that fit into a unified process but

that are not as yet fully defined or understood (Farr, Carey, & Tone, in preparation; J. Orasanu, personal communication, January 12, 1984). Each of these

characteristics of reading is discussed below, along with its implications for

reading assessment.

Action, interpretation, and inference. The reader actively constructs

meaning from text cues by calling on knowledge of language, text structure,

writing conventions, and the topic itself. The reader applies inference and

interpretation to go beyond what is given (Farr, Carey, & Tone, in preparation). Researchers have studied text cues through methods of text analysis

and text linguistics. The active, inferential, interpretive nature of reading

creates at least seven implications for reading assessment.

First, reading comprehension tests may be most valid when they are functional, that is, when they involve materials similar to those needed to perform everyday and vocational tasks (Miller, 1973). 'Reading assessment ought

to reflect the schema domains, syntax, vocabulary, style, and structure of

materials that will need to be read by the individuals taking the tests,

(Farr, Carey, & Tone, in preparation, p. 24). As a consequence, job-relevant

reading tests of a criterion-referenced nature (i.e., keyed to a specified

criterion or standard of performance) may be more useful for Army populations

than are other kinds of reading tests, at least for the purpose of assessing

comprehension. However, if a test is given with the intent of ranking group

members and not with the intent of carefully assessing comprehension, then it

might be acceptable to use a norm-referenced, general reading test that is not

job related.

Second, in order to employ a somewhat uniform cognitive schema, reading

tests need to be developed, tested, and normed, using populations similar to

those who will take the test. For example, an adult reading test should not

be developed using just children, and items developed for children may not be

relevant for adults. These facts, while seemingly straightforward, are overlooked with surprising frequency.

Third, the active, inferential, interpretive characteristic of the new

theory implies that tests should be appropriate to the examinees insofar as

possible. Therefore, adaptive (tailored) testing may be useful. Adaptive

testing allows the individual to take only items that are at a relevant difficulty level and may shorten test administration time (McBride, 1979). The

joint services are now designing and testing for the ASVAB computerized adaptive testing, whicij could be used for adult reading tests as well.

Fourth, because readers of various cultural backgrounds can interpret

reading passagcs differently and come to different conclusions, test bias

(known as 'differential validity') can occur unless background knowledge is

controlled or explained. However, because reading conprehension depends

greatly on background knowledge, such knowledge cannot be artificially factored out or eliminated by using esoteric content (Farr, Carey, & Tone, in

preparation).

4
Fifth, reading tests of literal recall are not as revealing or lifelike

as reading tests that demand some sort of inferencing. Old-fashioned tests of

literal recall are therefore to be avoided.

Sixth, the theory's encouragement of relevance of the test to the examinee indicates that child-based scores such as reading grade levels (grade

equivalents) are not useful for adults, although those scores are ubiquitous

in the armed forces (Parr, Carey, & Tone, in preparation; Miller, 1973).

"Seventh, text linguistics as used in the new theory can provide guidance

on how to create more reliable reading test items, that is, items that accurately and consistently measure the skill in question. Sample guidelines

include avoiding items that require stylistic and other ambiguous judgment;

not testing for incidental, insignificant information; not using harder vocabulary in questions than in text: and avoiding list-like density of ideas in

test items (J. Orasanu, personal communication, March 9, 1984).

In addition to the active, inferential, interpretive aspect of the new

theory, other aspects--purposefulness, cognitive strategies, nonlinearity, and

subskills--also have implications for reading assessment.

Purposefulness. The fact that reading is purposeful and involves motivation implies that reading test developers should select and present test

passages that engage the reader in a valid purpose, not just the purpose of

passing the test (Parr, Carey, & Tone, in preparation). The interest level

and degree of relevance must be kept high to maintain the reader's sense of

purpose. A negative sense of purpose (e.g., 9If I don't pass this reading

test I may not be allowed to reenlisa.) may have a detrimental effect on the

petformance of some readers but not of others. Functional reading tests might

instill a greater sense of purpose than more general reading tests do.

Cognitive strategies. An implication of the existence of cognitive strategies is that such strategies can improve not only reading in general but

also performance on reading tests. Different strategies useful for a variety

of purposes and genres can be taught. Such strategies can develop readers'

sensitivity and can thus improve comprehension of a passage in a reading test

or any other text (Brown & Armbruster, in preparation). Cognitive strategies

are also important in earlier theories, such as that of Gibson and Levin

(1975).

"Nonlinearity. Readers use interartlons among several information levels,

moving "top-down" and "bottom-up" and mixing higher order inference with simpler perceptual processes. Because of the nonlinear, complex interaction that

occurs, reading should not be assessed as the automatic decoding of a sequential string of lett(cs.

Subskills. The last few decades have seen a proliferation ot subskills

in reading tests (Parr, Carey, & Tone, in preparation), despite lack of adequate subskill definition, lack of a coherent reading theory from which subskills derive, and lack of a consensus on how many items are needed to measure

a particular subskill. The new theory may yet lead to a better understanding

of these subskills and how they can best be measured.

[S
Summary of Theories

We have discussed three types of reading theories: perceptual-cognitive,

information processing, and interactive-inferential. These theories all have

important implications for reading assessment. Some measure of agreement

exists across theories on the importance of examinee context, background

knowledge, and cognitive strategies for reading. The last theory seems to be

the most helpful in offering concrete implications for reading measurement.

We will now discuss psychometric qualities of available reading tests in light

of these implications.

PSYCHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AVAILABLE TESTS DIFFER

In this section, the standards implied by reading theory will be applied

to the review of reading tests currently available for Army use. This review

will cover both commercially and militarily developed reading tests. Theory and practice tell us that good reading tests should have certain psychometric

characteristics, including appropriate validity, reliability, norms, and

standards. All reading theories imply the need for valid measures, that is,

tests that measure what they purport to measure. The emerging interactiveinferential reading theory particularly emphasizes the need for a type of

content validity (or at least content relevance) that reflects the 3chema the

reader ordinarily employs. The need for reliability of measurement is implied

in the text-linguistic basis of this new reading theory. Appropriate norms

(for norm-referenced tests) and appropriate standards (for criterionreferenced tests) are also implicit in the emerging theory.

Armed Services Have Used Commercial Reading Tests

Standardized, norm-referenced, commercial reading tests have dominated

the armed forces market in the past. Widely used tests have included the

Adult Basic Literacy Examination (ABLE), the Test of Adult Basic Education

(TABE), the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, and the Metropolitan Achievement Test

(MAT), Reading, Form D. All of these tests have been reviewed elsewhere

(Buros, 1972, 1975; Oxford-Carpenter & Schultz, 1983). We will provide a

brief assessment of these tests in light of the standards implied by reading

theory.

The ABLE is one of a few commercially available, psychometrically sound

reading tests originally designed for and normed on adults. From a purely

technical standpoint, the ABLE appears to be a good commercially developed

reading test for Army use. The ABLE has well-documented reliability (high

.80s and .90s). Concurrent validity is based on administration of the ABLE

and the Stanford Achievement Test to elementary and junior high school students (.60-.76) and to an adult job corps group (.36-.72). The test was desigr-d for adults with varying achievement levels and for adults who have not

completed formal eighth-grade education. Norms are based on 6,000 elementary

and junior high school students, 800 job corps members, and 450 adult basic

education students. Vocabulary, reading, spelling, and arithmetic subtests

are available in two parallel forms. The reading subtest focuses on comprehension. The ABLE was originally selected for use in the Army's Basic Skills

6
Education Program (BSEP). However, the test proved unpopular with some BSEP

personnel for reasons related to administration not technical quality (Raines,

1983). The ABLE was replaced by the TABE for BSEP use about five years ago.

Though podsessing some technical merit, the TABE was chosen more on practical than technical grounds. The TABE covers reading, language, and arithmetic; its reading subtest contains both vocabulary and comprehension. The

test is actually a revision of the California Achievement Test (CAT), which

was designed for children. TABE developers removed patently childish references from the CAT or changed them to adult references. TABE subtests have

adequate reliability (in the high .70s through .90s). Validity documentation

for the TABE is not cornpellinq, because its concurrent validity is based on a

correlation of .56 with the General Educational Development examination using

a small sample. The idea of 'inherited' validity from the CAT is spurious.

Furthermore, the TABE lacks adult norms, and its use in testing adults in the

Army has drawn strong criticism (Bacbem, 1982). Clearly, key career decisions

for soldiers should not be made on the basis of children's norms, such as

those of the TABE. However, the TABE has been useful in BSEP for diagnosing

soldiers' strengths and weaknesses.

The Army has frequently used the Nelson-Denny Reading Test and the MAT.

Designed to assess reading for college placement and adult reading classes,

the Nelson-Denny has adult norms. The MAT was given a new, Army cover and

used as the U.S. Armed Forces Institute (USAFI) Reading Test with few changes

in the ci.,ilian-to-military transformation. Its norm group includes no adults.

For both tests reliability is strong, but validity is not. The Army has also

occasionally used other commercial reading tests, such as the Gates-McGinitie

Reading Test and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. A review of these comrercially developed reading tests is presented in the Appendix.

These tests need to be evaluated on the basis of whether they provide

appropriate validity, reliability, and norms demanded by reading theory and by

practicality. The Army particularly needs to examine the validity of commercial reading tests in light of Army needs. Although a given reading test may

be highly valid for a group of school children, it may not be valid for adults

in an intense, job-oriented Army setting. Furthermore, the issue of standards

is pertinent to commercial reading tests as used in the Army. Most commercial

reading tests are purely norm referenced and do not advertise acceptable standards of performance. However, the Army has occasionally used these tests in

a quasi-criterion-referenced way by designating a given grade equivalent test

score as an acceptable minimum standard for soldiers. For example, ninth-grade

reading level has become a magic number to some Army leaders. Before any

standards are chosen, those standards need to be shown to correlate hiqhly

5 with Army job performance (not just with Army job materials). Insufficient

research has been done in this fruitful area.

Armed Forces Have Developed Their Own Reading Tests

While the armed forces have commonly used commercial, norm-referenced

reading tests, the military has also created reading tests. The Army has taken

the lead in much of this test development. Throughout the 1970s and the early

1980s, the Army worked on a series of job-related reading tests for Army enlisted personnel (Claudy & Caylor, 19821 Sticht, 1975, 1982; Sticht, Hooke, &

* - .•• •• • • •i. .• • • .• . ... ;• 7- . •: 1. . . .• - - '. '
m

Caylor, 1982; Sticht, Caylor, & James, 1978; and Sticht, Caylor, Kern, & Fox,

1971). These efforts produced the Job Reading Task Tests (JRTT) and the Job

Reading Test (JRT), which are MOS-specific and emphasize functional literacy.

Unlike the JRTT, the JRT is normed and machine-scorable. As mentioned

• •.earlier, the Army is currently involved in a massive test development undertaking under the Job Skills Education Program (JSEP), which will provide

* computerized, job-related testing in basic skills. The other armed services

have also developed their own reading measures, but the efforts appear to have

been independent rather than coordinated. A leading developer of Army reading

tests stated that the Army's own reading tests have never been accepted be-

. cause of lack of internal advocacy. Support existed for test development but

* not for test use (T. Sticht, personal communication, August 16, 1983). A review of selected militarily developed reading tests is found in the Appendix.

An important merit of some reading tests developed by the military is

also one deficiency: job-specificity. The emerging reading theory encourages

the use of functional, job-related reading tests. However, because approximately 350 jobs exist in the Army alone, the task of developing just one test

* form per job is a monumental endeavor. Of course, to enhance reliability

there should be several test forms per job. Furthermore, rapid technological

change in job content means that job-related tests need to be continually

updated. Such an endeavor is obviously very costly and difficult. Other

options might be to develop reading tests for career management fields instead

of jobs or to develop reading tests for only the highest density jobs. Even

these options are not simple.

Given the issues associated with use of commercial and military reading

tests, the Army has occasionally sought a surrogate measure of reading, a test

that can be said to measure reading while not actually measuring it. Many Army

administrators have looked longingly toward the ASVAB as such a surrogate

reading test.

ASVAB SCORES ARE CORRELATED WITH READING TEST SCORES

Because most reading tests at present cannot adequately account for the

role of such factors as background knowledge and reasoning ability, such tests

may be seen as measures of intelligence and experience as well as measures of

reading ability (Farr, Carey, & Tone, in preparation). Consequently, it is

not surprising that reading tests are often highly correlated with general

measures of aptitude or "trainability" (Jensen, 1981), such as the ASVAB.

Like similar tests, the ASVAB is 'reading-dependent,' that is, reading is

necessary but not sufficient to perform well on the test. Moderate to large

correlations have been demonstrated between the ASVAB and several reading

tests. For example, Sticht (1975) showed a .65 correlation between an

unspecified reading test and the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), which

covers four key ASVAB subtests. The Job Reading Task Tests developed by

Sticht for the Army also have moderate (in the .50s and .60s) correlations

with the AFQT (Sticht, 1975). Fischl (1981) found that the USAFI Reading Test

correlated .80-.95 with various composites of the ASVAB and with the total

ASVAB for a sample of 600 soldiers. In a recent investigation involving 2,385

Army and Marine recruits, a .85 correlation was found between the ABLE and the
General Technical (GT) composite of the ASVAB (P. Grafton, personal communication, August 15, 1983). Among several groups of soldiers whose English

proficiency was limited and who were headed for Army English-as-a-secondlanguage (ESL) training, Oxford-Carpenter (1982) found very low correlations

(in the teens and .20s) between the ABLE and a number of ASVAB composites.

After ESL instruction, the correlation between the same soldiers' ABLE and

ASVAB scores rose to the .40s and .50s. In summary, reading tests have been

shown to correlate moderately to highly with the ASVAB as long as language

problems (for individuals with limited proficiency in English) do not

intervene.

A large verbal element clearly exists in the ASVAB (Valentine, n.d.), and

some researchers have conjectured that the ASVAB indirectly measures reading

ability. In fact, the Army has devised a so-called literacy index for the

ASVAB by equating the ASVAB-GT with a composite of three ABLE subtests, reading, vocabulary, and arithmetic reasoning (P. Grafton, personal communication,

August 15, 1983). The index involves ABLE grade equivaleatt scores, which,

while apparently simple, have some complexities that are discussed next.

GRADE EQUIVALENT SCORES CAN BE MISLEADING

Grade equivalent scores, popularly known in the military as reading grade

levels when applied to reading tests, are the most used and abused of all score

types. The emerging interactive-inferential reading theory implies that reading tests should be as appropriate as possible to the examinees. Therefore,

use of grade equivalent scores with adults is potentially misleading (Miller,

1973). Bachem denounced the use of grade equivalent scores in the military

setting: oThe use of elementary school grade levels to categorize adult combat soldiers seems little short of an insult, no matter how desperate their

need for remedial work may beg (Bachem, 1982, p.4). Grade equivalent scores

are not applicable to high school or adult levels because these scores have

ambiguous meaning beyond the earlier years of constant growth (Ysseldyke &

MXrston, 1982), and because they compare adults not with .%eir peers but with

children. Even using grade equivalent scores with children can be misleading

(Oxford-Carpenter & Schultz, 1983). Scores other thar grade equivalents are

abundant, and many are potentially useful for reading assessment in the Army.

Some useful norm-referenced scores include percentile ranks, standard scores,

stanines, and some types of adjusted gain scores. Criterion-referenced scores,

which are frequently encountered in Army training programs, include number of

objectives mastered or passed, number of trials to mastery, and time to mastery. These scores may also be useful for Army reading measurement. The

emerging theory of reading suggests that criterion-referenced scores may be

very helpful, because criterion-referenced tests are geared toward opecific

objectives and have relevant standards and may therefore be more germane than

other types of tests. However, the theory does not rule out use of normreferenced tests and their associated scores.

9
SIX MAJOR CONCLUSIONS ARE REACHED

Six major conclusions may be drawn from both theory and practice. First,

reading is important in military and civilian work life. Second, reading assessment is a highly visible and important issue in the Army. Third, reading

theories--especially the interactive-inferential theory--can positively influence r.ading measurement practices in the Army. Fourth, reading tests differ

widely in terms of psychometric characteristics and overall quality as evaluated using theory-based standards. Fifth, high correlations exist between the

ASVAB and various reading teuts, although caution needs to be exercised in

using any part of the ASVAB as a reading surrogate. Sixth, alternatives to

grade equivalent scores are available and should be considered for use by the

Army.

1

i

-°-

B

°1

-S

°
REFERENCES

Bachem, M. B. (1982). Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE or not TABE).

In Proceedings, 24th Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (pp. 48-51). Alexandria, VA: Defense Technical Information Center.

Brown, A. L., & Armbruster, 0. B. (in preparation). The role of

metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading

comprehension: From research to practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Buros, 0. K. (1972). Seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park,

"NJ: Gryphon Press.

Buros, 0. K. (1975). Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park,

NJ: Gryphon Press.

Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (in preparaticn). Recent progress in

basic research on the cognitive processes in reading. In J. Orasanu

(Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

J. G., & Caylor, J. SClaudy, S. (1982). Development of job-based reading

tests (ARI Technical Report 479). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A123 324)

* Diehl, W., & Mikulecky, L. (1980). The nature of literacy at work. Journal

of Reading, 24, 221-227.

Parr, R., Carey, R., & Tone, B. (in preparation). Recent theory and

research into the reading process: Implications for reading assessment.

In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

SFischl, M. A. (1981). Soldier reading abiliit- The advocacy point of view.

In Proceedings, 23rd Annual Conference of t,.e miilitary Testing

Association (pp. 1447-1450). Alexandria, VA: Defense Technical

Information Center.

Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1981). Straight talk about mental tests. New York: Free

Press.

Massaro, D. W. (1975). Understanding language: An information-processing

analysis of speech perception, reading and psycholinguistics. New York:

Academic Press.

"McBride, J. R. (1979). Adaptive mental testing (ARI Technical Report 423).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (AD A088 000)

'.'. 11
Mikulecky, L. (1982). Job literacy: The relationship between school

preparation and workspace actuality. Reading Research Quarterly, 17,

400-419.

Mikulecky, L., & Strange, R. L. (in preparation). Effective literacy

training programs for adults in business and municipal employment.

In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From reasearch to practice.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Miller, G. A., Ed. (1973). Linguistic communication: Perspectives for

research. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Oxford-Carpenter, R. (1982). Data tables for English-as-a-second language.

Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA.

Oxford-Carpenter, R. L., & Schultz, L. J. (1983, November). Reading

assessment in the Army. (ARI Working Paper RS-WP-83-5). Alexandria,

VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Raines, J. (1983). Information paper: Literacy testing for mid-term

reenlistment. Alexandria, VA: Education Directorate, The Adjutant

General's Office, Department of the Army.

Sacher, J., & Duffy, T. (1978, March). Reading skill and military

effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario.

Sticht, T. G. (Ed.). (1975). Reading for working: A functional literacy

anthology. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Sticht, T. G. (1980, April). Literacy and vocational competence. (Report

2, No. 12). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Sticht, T. G. (1982). Basic skills in defense. (BumRRO-PP-3-82).

Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Sticht, T. G., Beck, L. J., Bauke, R. N., Kleiman, G. M., & James, J. H.

(1974). Auding and reading: A developmental model (APHRL-TR-74-36).

Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Sticht, T. G., Caylor, J. S., & James, J. H. (1978). Job-related reading

tasks: Teaching marginally literate adults to read (HumRRO-PP-10-78).

Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Sticht, T. C., Caylor, J. S., Kern, R. P., & Pox, L. C. (1971). Literacy

skill requirements in four military occupational specialties

(HumRRO-TR-71-23). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research

Organization.

12
Sticht, T. G., Hooke, L. R., & Caylc.r, J. S. (1982). Literacy, okacy, and

vocational aptitude as predictors of attrition and promotion in the Armed

Services (HumRRO-PP-2-82). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research

Otganization.

Valentine, L. D., Jr. (n.d.). Development of the Air Force Reading Ability

Test. Unpublished manuscript, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory,

Brooks Air Force Base, TX.

Ysseldyke, J. E., & Marston, D. (1982). A critical analysis of standardized

reading tests. School Psychology Review, 11, 257-266.

13

......................- ... . N.-..,,.- -.. , .; .- . . . ... ... ... . .. - -. -... ..--.. . . .... .. -.-.- .. •. i.
APPENDIX

15
Table 1

Review of Commercially Developed Reading Tests

OR LATEST SMAI INTIENDE INTINDED TEST

*TEST SERIES PUBLISHER COP 1fiO"f PURPOSE(S) POPULATMO $MOUE tRLI~fTY

*Adult Basi Learn- PsyhologicaI 1974 To determine general Adults witht achieve Grade equivalents. Concu~ren! validly lo* to moderate 1

ing E Kam (ABLE)' Corponation edvacbon "4 of adults, mient levels grades based on equating based onl. (1) admrnifitrati0( of ABLE

to evaliuate adutt eouca- 1-4, S-9. 10-12.' ABLE to Stanford and SAT to elemenhary and unrtor

bon programs adults who have not Achievilment Test high students (60- 76). (2) adminiS.

complted formal etir (SAW using Scores of tratiori of ABLE arid SAT paagraphr

gradeducation ttudents in grafts meaning to lob corps group (36--72) 2-7. authors Vrcourage use of oa noIMS (gPic@0b16

SelectASLE Ps~holog~caI 1974 To screen for determina Same as for ABLE Raw score. percent fNlA

Corporation bont of which ABLE Woe'1 correct

CarverDarbyto adrniniter

Pavr-aby Fevrac Pitlicabon 1972 To measure information Grades 9-16 and Efficiency. accrac. Y11idity best viewed as Pilot study Chunkeid Reading (developed by stored durinlg readirtg adlults and rate scores, no Test ArnifricAn lastrlute standard~Lzd scores. for Reserch)

Gates-McGintoe Houaghton Mifhin 1978 To assess three Areas of Grades 1-12. Paw acore. extended Confentt validity suitable. may have

Read:ng Test reaiding Standard Scori high verbal-IO Component (has highr

percerdS conrrettiofI withtlLarge Ttrornoie

verbal to).

Gray Oral Reading BotiOS-Memli 1%67 To asses "r reading Grades 1-16 and Grade equrvatet INA'

Test Skit: adult (total score ounly)

Metropoltlai Ps~ctologiica! 19M To assess achievement Grades 2.5-95 for Scaled score per- Covneut validity good no predicti

*Achwrinevee Testi Corporation on a number of Nuill reading subtest ceribles. starrines. of otier validity, mentioned in areas gradequivalenits. tovwkis. tes authors Suggest buca

coinculurn 44ltyd be cuiecked.

Nelson Dunnyv Hougfrlor-Mitmi 1973 To assess reading for Grades 9-16 arid Percentiles, grdad Little data ont concurrent and DredicReading Test college placement and adults equivalents thne validity. notting on conteit or adult reading classes Construct valiit

Rai I BASic Read- Rictirltsmn 1969 To assess freadirig corn Disadvantaged adults. Percentiles. standard Lacks coniencing validity data, no

ing and Wiord Tes Bellowsi% Henry & prehlension anid acor Isatanstlc

Comnparty vocabulary,

RBH Test of Richardso. 1963 To test reading Corr, Business and Percentiles. standard Lacim convincing validity data. low

Reading Bellows. Henry & prehension using sin Industry score$ validil coefficients (V.1745) Comprehension Company articles relatd to buist- ness and Industry

Tests Of Adult CTB(McGra-H~li 1976 To Mnasure reading arid Adults reading atGradequivalents Content validty bsdol oie

Basic Educatioin arithmetic leools of laeves oi children in based sri California aerection procedurs ro CTQue.,

(TASEI adults using an adapted grades 2-4 Achievemnent Tests tionable validity Concurrent validity

version 0f a chladrns (Levoel E). 4-6 (CAT). 19MG ~ w~th GEC test

teot (1*4 Pol. 7-9

(tiel D).

*Virdie Flange Jastuli Assessment 1978 70 assess Quickly ttvee years to &dolt Standard Scores. Content validty, questionable A~~onn et Ssesdiscrete &reas of gradled ofiuivaleants. Actievenen S~emsiluctwaument Jes percetibles based on

Levetli 1I

1 - lryloimaoon not available

2 - Revie% concerns readrino-roiaed sutttests only (e q.. reading. nocatruiary. sp.:ilngl

3 - 7irrung for vvisol test

----------------------------------6
Table 1 (Continued)

Review of Commercially Developed Reading Tests

VS& SUFTEMSON ITEM

AFUASILITY WORMS10111 INONIOUAJ. TIMING ROMEO FOAMS SCOPE ARIA QUALITY

Spri h8:1 re abiýty, good Based on 60DO Group Lm!e 1 145 min Hand a' Machine AS & xWabu'ary. real-gQ Ite-is appear t{)iticaliy to excelent fo: school elementary arnd Lewt 2 145 mon spei:.ng. anitt-metic weel constructed Most

group ( 87-95). to corps junior hligh 510- Le"t 3 207 mint I items teimni to adii ts

*group (85,- 961. and clents. OW lob Reading items are clane

adult basic education ttu- corps; memtype s arid do not mea- dns91%)No inifet and 450 adult basic sure all facets at

tilion oin test-retest at education studeotts neadting- 1 usl reading ohrreliability crpeeso

KR-20 P4-87. soiitiailf 452 Military Group 15 met Hand One Form Total Adequate

W6-91. recruets

Reliatbility best viiwetd as Totally unsatislac- Group 25 nin optiona! Machuine AS&O Efficiency. accuracy. Owndes SefltlflcesIo

pilot studty-rioit high toLy means and rate chinks butwethout a (4-t). nidard deuguon consistent thteoretical

ravalable or 41 basis related to thre

tcollege student readnQi act volunteers'

Alternate tomreliabi:.r, Worming procedures Group Leve A B SO min Hand 01 Machine 1.2 3 S:Deed.accuraco. Adequate

4 72-90) good Levi C 50 mm vocabulary

Lmv!e CS 7 Itin comprehensiont

hue" 0 40 i

LevielE 4A min

Standarl COTrs 0fmea Norms baned on INA' INA' INA' A, B. C 0 Corrprehension tota items satisfactory to

soremelt adequata very smnat' samples good. ott' mactog only IN .=40 De' glade) _______ _______ ________ ________

Ivernal cons stency rel-a Norm. group care Group Lan' P-2 160-170 Hand or Machine J &K Wod knowliledge ites tureten for

airiy 90 n. standard hilly selected 170n . mbading. total word Children no! adults Con.

erro's 01 measurement L'vel £ 225-235 alarysis ýor language, test Po!Wems because

encllntrtn . depending on test cointent remote loom

Level I 270 min . levlel). --pielfng. mathie adult life

Lent A 265 min t mtics tCOulpulltaif.

concepts problem SoW ____________ __________ _____ _________ Ing. total)

High aiternate forms Standardnnon OK. Groop 30-35 min Hard or Machine AS&O Vocabulary Comore Mostly lieel constructed

rel'ablity In' most sSUI- adult noims based heranw. total. rute Herns

tents based on amal! on cut time adminsamples. hoiovevet ostratton only _ __________

licks connIncing reliabi. INA' Group 25-30 man Hian One Form Total1 items cover mostly

dy data 1 86 probably an %tocabulary Choice 01

overestittatel vercuboiary tested is

Reliabiets data not adeý Test probably was Group 25-25 min Hano One Form Total INA,

qualte. no means and too easy tor norm * standard devations group, norms not

* gien adeiquately

standardized

KR-20 for 'eadling teot No adult ny'ms. Group Levl E 127 m~n Hood 3 &4 Reading (vocabulary items iolre wnrten, tot

sectrci W6-94. test noimrs base on Lvew M 2M9 nri comprehension Iolta) chiloren but have been

retest tfo leading 79- 85 stuldents in grades Low:t 0 191 min Arithmnetic reasoning tevised to omnit purely 2-9 tundamrentals total) chi'dishm references

spellinlg.ttO -lot top

F bor test also badlable)

High rep-Died reliabilities No national noenning Pail 20-30 ron Hand Onre Form SeOring. arrihinettC. Quesnionatie item deutl

1901 are tsusedl sample Norms inoirildual reuddog (based on opiment anl; qua r

0 dleveloped from clinical tactot

continuous age analysisl data Ideensty Aan

nature of adorm

group not clear

17
Table 2

Review of Selected Military Developed Reading Tests

DE VELOPER

ON LATEST MAIN INTENDED INTENDED TEST TEST SERIES PEISUSNER COPYRIGHT PURPOSE(S) POPULAT"O SCORES VhUIOtTY

Ae Forc Reading US Air Force INA' To assess reaiding ability 5thi grade tflrougt GE. percentile Concurrent validity is 72 wvitf, Callso'.

Ability Test among tair to excellent colleg evlene. not nia ACMw Tes. 7$ with Nclson. nt t oc r~r neadedtrs (4or Dnin predictine valicitr Todrateig

(AFRAT)' ~~ inth ~ irFoc ~~~readers fo orDnypredictin intde vildie modratnin

Schoo grafes. - 13- 61 In Dredrcti'i

technica ¶uiniefl gradOs) Corrpre- hte isio Wibtter predictor thin __________ ___________ _________ ocabulary

Jai ReaS,il Task U S Army circa To assess Pidormance Army enlisted Percent correct. Mod-rate (64- 801 concurrent Vand:ty

Tests' I97I-1973 on Army 0o reaiding personnel reading grade lexe With sthandardlied aclrh' test Lowe,

tasls with -terns based conrcurrenlt vai~dity vith AFO)T on 3 military Doccupa- Moderate correlations With course tional spec~lastes grades AnM job kniloivedge tests

MlOS). for research put-

__________ __________ _______ Posts inity

Job Read. ig Task US Army circa 1975 To assess pertormance Army enlisted GE. percentiles Conteri! validity good. based on ite"s

Tets n Army job reading personnel horn erspinu~lty determinedf tob

taslas vitlr items based rating taUW concurirent validity an 6 MOS ranges WO 79 witith USAFI RGL

mrtlnoin

job Readrigý Testss U S Afrmy citca 1982 To asses perfoirmance Army enlisted Percentile Validity data not corrvncing Item

on Arm; job reading Personnel validity atirea's ae~uatte Only ins'., t&WV~t IRS bsedmatron on test validity is That Nr. con- on_____ 6________ tent is drawln caretaq foromn 6 MOS

F US AimedWForces

* Reading Test

* (sa.Tie as

Metrotoiitani

I* Intoimas'on rorn Mathevs (pewsnnil Commuinnicationl, Sepilrriter 7. 19W) and Valentine (nd)

* ~2 - Intormation not avalable from "ielhed source 3 - One form assumed anless more tha one is specihe

4 - Infocrmation from Sflcht (19751

* 5 - Inforrmation fvrom Claudty 8Cah4or (1982)
10

Table 2 (Continued)

Review of Selected Military Developed Reading Tests

GROUP

V& SIUTEMl OR ITEM

RELIABILITY NORMS INDOMOUAI. TIMING 1CORING FORMS8 SCORE AREAS OUALITY

Internal consistency Aduhmlt andlA Group 50 mini total test Hand or Machno Ak 8 comprehensiont. Vocabulary and corn reiabh:,N approx .90fo femal A~irtt Al ice vocabultry. total. prehtension items abM~

whole est an " enlstetmawfe in quality

Tes:-fetest reliabht, INA? Group INA? INA2 Three forms. cook. Tablet. standirdS and INA?

75-80 No other reliate suppty Clark. vehi- specifications. inentifiilly ifn'ormtOri cle repairmian cation and clescnvoton.

procedural directboils.

chieck points. him.C

Donal descnipboer.

KA-21 93- 9A. a~lerna~e 750 younfg dut Group 1 +r Hard A, 1, C Using inde to locatte ,re!,pnt ,nliO

torms 68- 75. SE ot mnale Army rectruts mltormitior. extracting blank items cause slo*

tosm! 02-96 information forom tables scriong

and nirral" peose.

tclloonng proceoural _____________ ____________ ________ ___________ _____________ directions;

INAz Noriring appear$ Group 301-40 mini. Machine A. B, c Locatng job infortnl Item statistics appeal

adeQuate tion in tables. idnt adequate Muitiple

graphs. and ruflarrir choioce items

torrrto completton

19d

.MINES