DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 084 362 CE 000 502

AUTHOR Joaelyn, Edwin Gary, Comp.; Perry, Dallis E.TITLE hinnesota Test -Boras and Expectancy Tables. Revised

Edition.INSTITUTION Minnesota State Dept. of Education, St. Paul.5PON5 AGENCY Office of Education (DHEM), Washington, D.C.PUB DATE 71NOTE 302p.; 1961 edition revised 197 1

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF-0.65 HC-$13.16*Achievement Tests; *Aptitude Tests; *Counseling;*Expectancy Tables; Norm Referenced Tests;Occupational Tests; Paw Scores; Student Testing;*Tables (Data); Testing; Test Interpretation; TestReliability; Test Results; Tests; Test Selection;Test Validity

ABSTPACTThe volume of test-norms and expectancy tables is

intended as a tool for counselors in counseling individuals. The workcontains a chapter on test interpretation to assi -t the counselor inrelating individual test scores to other information about theindividual. In the Minnesota Norms section of the tables, there areno data at the elementary level. At the secondary level there are twotypes of tests: scholastic aptitude (Lorye- Thorndike, andDifferential Aptitude), and achievement (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills;Stanford Achievement, both advanced battery and high school battery;Iowa Tests of Educational Development; and the Minnesota EnglishTest). Tests for post-high school include Minnesota ScholasticAptituae, High School Percentile Rank by type of Minnesota College,and General Aptitude Test Battery by Training Groups. There areexpectancy tables for the various campuses and colleges of the Univ.of Minnesota and other Minnesota colleges grouped according to thecategories: Private Liberal Arts Colleges, State Colleges, and JuniorColleges. Finally, there are two interest tests results: StrongVocational Interest Blank and Minnesota Vocational InterestInventory. (AG)

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

(-%

.J0Pr\ MINNESOTA TEST-NORMS

CO andCD

EXPECTANCY TABLESU. I

U S DE PARTME NT OF NEAT TNEDUCATION& WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCAtiON

T*4S 0o(us.I NT "As 1 I (,mg( (I A( IL v A. ,v1 b ITF of USW. 04 OUGAN,/n1,0n1rNC.,1 POik, IS 01 LrEA 04 01,N,C)..tSTATED DO NOT ssAu., v gel nutSENT 01, c rAL NA 1.OSA1 5ST, 1I 01EDUCATION Poso Dy ot, poi rf

CompiledBy

Edwin Gary Joselyn

With A ChapterBy

Dallis K. Perry

The Minnesota Guidance Publications edited by :G. Dean MillerJules H. Kerlan

Reynold M. Erickson

The publication was made possible with funds made available tinder provisionsof the Elementary and Secondary Ad of 1905, Title 111 and the VocationalEdountion Ad of 1903, as amended 1968,

Developed in Cooperationwith

115.Pupil Personnel Services Section

and

14)Division of Vocational-Technical Education

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1971

4Nit1,11

come,,14

FOREWORD

The purpose of this loose-leaf publication, Minne-sota Test-Norms and Expectancy Tables, is to providecounselors working in all settings with test resultsthat should be useful in counseling with individuals.However, the value of any individual's test score de-pends upon the manner in which it is used. A singletest scow used in isolation could prove harmful tosome students and in such eases students would bedone a disservice. Test results must be consideredtogether with all other information about studentsto be helpful in the development of their vocational-educational plans. Dr. Dallis Perty's chapter on testinterpretation was written especially to assist thecounselor to take all these factors into considerationin the utilization of test data for individun:s.

The booklet is loose-leaf so that it may be kept cur-rent by adding new test information as it is developed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publi is a revised and expanded version of the ratherdiluin. Published in 19(i1 with later supplements which were dis'

tribute(' to the schools and related zigencirs.

Tin nonnative data and expectancy tables wen made possiblethrough the cooperation and support of the Minnesota Association ofColleges, Minnesota State-Wide Testing Programs, and the NlinnesotaResearch Coordination Unit in Occupational Education. The latterunit, sponsored by the Division of Vocational-Technical Education,Minnesota Department of Education and the University of Minnesota,Provided the nonnative data on the General Aptitude Test Battery1GATB) and the Nlinnesota Vocational Interest Inventory (\WU).

Individuals singled out for their contributic.! include Dr. Garylosclyn, Minnesota State-Wide Testing Programs, who compiled andedited the entire publication; Dr. Dallis Perry, Assistant Director,Student Counseling Bureau, University of Minnesota, Minneapoliswho wrote the chapter on test interpretation; Dr. David Pucel andDr. Howard Nelson of the Minnesota Research Coordination Unit inOccupational Education for data from project NMI-SCORE trainingnorms, and the Student Counseling Bureau's Technical Divisionstaff who prepared the many tables and figures.

iii

The members of the Ad floc Committee on Testing of The PupilPersonnel Services Section, State 1)epartinent of Education, partici-pated in planning the content and orgaiiiiation o1 this revision. Thouassistance is gratefully acknowledged.

Members of the Committer:

1)r. Paul Ingell. Chilli mailProfessor 1)1 PsychologySt. Cloud State College. St. Cloud

14. Boger Nl. Adams, DirectorPersonni ServicesNVayzata Public Schools NV;I /,11.1

Hobert J. (:asanova. Principal1)e La Salle High School, Minneapolis

Dooald ( :lanson. 1)ireutorCurriculum DevelopmentState 1)cpartinent Of Education. St. Pa-il

1)r. E. Cary Josclyn, Editor. andSchool Testing Consultant

State-NN'ide Testing Programs

Uniursit:)f\il1;s(i.Julius Kerlin, ConsultantPupil Porsonel ServicesState 1)epartment of Education. St. Roil

Dr. Gerald Niece, DirectorElementary EducationState 1)epartment of Education, St. Paul

1)r. Gerald Thompson, CounselorSt. Lout; Park Senior High School, St. Louis Park

Pupil Personnel ServicesMinnesota Department of Education

iv

CONTENTS

hnrwoAcknowIckrinents iiicontents

Interpreting Standardized Test Scotus, Oaths K. PerryMinnesota Norms Section

Elementary Level ( untie aVailabh

het tHRIAry

SchalSik Aphilld( T.'stSLorge-hmmlike Intelligence Test

Grade 7 :31

Grade 8 32(;rade 9

Diflerential Aptitude TestGrille S

\ tales .35

Females :37

Grade 9NIales 39Females

Grade 10tales -13

Females -15

Achievement TestsIowa Tests of Basic Skills 9

Grade 7 50Grade S 5.1

Stanford Achievement Tests. Advanced Battery 63Grade 7 64Grade S 66

Iowa Tests of Educational Development 69Grade 9 71Grade 10 7.7Grade 11 7:3Grade 12 74

Stanford Achievement Test. High School BatteryGrade 9 76Grade 10 SOGrade 11 84Grade 12 88

Minnesota English Test 93

1 est s lor Post-High SchoolMinnesota Scholastic Aptitude Tests 04

All juniors Entering College Freshment official Norms

Norms by type of Minnesota College

fligh School Percentile Bank by type of MinnesotaCollege 100

General Aptitude Test Battery 101

Training GroupsCluster

Air Conditioning, Refrigeration. andAppliance Repair 107

Aircraft Nlechanics 110Agri-Technology 113Architotnral Drafting 116Autoinoti:es 110I >lest.] Mchanies 122Electronics 125Carpentry 12'Farm Equipment NIechanics 1:31

Fluid Power Technology 134Machine Shop 137Mechanical Drafting and Design 1.10

Plumbing and Sheet Metal 143Power and ,Home Electricity 146Printing an4 Graphic Arts 140Welding 152

Cluster IIAccounting 155Chefs ;aid Cooks 15`iCleriVal Training 161Cosrhetology 164Datia Processing 167Dental Assistant 170Inxerior Design and Sales Assistant 17SMedical Lab Assistant 176Practical Nursing 179Sales 182Secretarial Training 185

Expectancy Tables . 188University of Minnesota

College of AgrienIture, Forestry, andHome Economics 189

vi

(:allege (PI Liberal Arts 190College of Education 191

Institute of Technology 192

General College 19:3

Dental Hygiene 19.1

1)ultith 195!orris 196

C:rookston 197

PH' Ate Liberal Arts Colleges

Augsburg College 199Bethel College 199Carleton College .100

Coucoidia CollegeMoorhead 201

Cone ordia CollegeSt. Paul 20: .

Dr. Martin Luther College . 203Gustavus Adolphus College 20-1

Hamline University 90511acalster College 20(;

College of St. Benedict 207College of St. Catherine 207St. John's UniversitySt. Mary's CollegeWinona . 20SSt. Olaf College 209St. Paul Bible College 210College of St. Scholastica 210College of St. Thomas 211

State CollegesBemidji State College 212Mankato State College 213Moorhead State College 214St. Cloud State College 215Winona State College 216

Junior CollegesAnoka-Ramsey 217Austin. 21SBrainerd 219Fergus Falls 220Hibbing 221Itasca 92)Lakewood ................. 223Mesabi 224Metropolitan 225Normandale 226North Hennepin .. 227

vii

Not thland 1.1sRochester 1,19

Vermillion 2:10

211\Vorthington 2:32Bethany Lutheran 111(:orbett College 213Crosier Seminar. 23.1Golden \'alley Lutheran 1:35St, Mary'sMinneapolis 1:36

Interest TestsStrong Vocational Interest Blank :37Minnesota Vocational Interest Inventory 210

Training GroupsCluster I

Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, andAppliance Repair 212

Aircraft Mechanics 2SSAgri-TechnologyArchitectural Drafting 256AntomotivesDiesel Mechanics 270Electronics 1-16Carpentry 251)

Farm Equipment Nlechanics 20.1Fluid Power Technology 266Machine Shop 17-1

Mechanical Drafting and Design :14-1

Plumbing and Sheet Metal.. 16-1

Power and Home Electricity 186Printing and Graphic ArtsWelding 2H)

Cluster IIAccounting 278Chefs and Cooks 25SClerical TrainingCosmetology

15:731:;

Data Processing 290Dental AssistantInterior Design and Sales.Assistant 294Medical Lab Assistant 292Practical NursingSales . . 282Secretarial Training 276

vii:

INTERPRETING STANDARDIZED TEST SCORESDallis K. Perry

Uses of Tests

Standardized tests .ire used to assist in making a wide %ariet nleducational decisions :

Which students should be selected for Special Program A?

What educational and vocational plans are reasonable fnr Student 13?

For what level of instruction in mathematics is Student C read?

I las Class I) made the expected progress in science?

!low successful is the new social studies curriculum in School E?

Test scores provide just one of many kinds of information that mustbe evaluated and integrated to answer these questions. The was inwhich such information is used in educational administration, instruc-tion, and guidance is the subject of such disciplines as educationalevaluation, teaching methodology, and counseling and is beyond thescope of this discussion; but, before we use test results in any waY,we must understand what information is contained in the test scoreswhat it is they do and do not tell us.

Cronbach's (1970) definition of a test as systeina.ie procedurefor observing a person's behavior and describing it with the aid of anumerical scale or category system" is perhaps as satisfactory as any.The tests with which we are concerned are standardized testsstandardized both with respect to the presentation of the stimuli( items) that elicit the behavior that is observed and with respect tothe reference data by which the numerical results are interpreted. Thescore that results directly from a test operation is ordinarily an arbi-trary and quite meaningless figure. A considerable portion of t,sttechnology is concerned with Procedures for transforming such "raw.'scores to scales that "build ill" significance through their relation toone or more kinds of reference information. Two general classes oftransformed scores are "norm-referenced" scores. which indicate rela-tive standing in comparison with a specified reference group. and"criterion-referenced" scores, which relate test performance to thekind of behavior exhibited by, or expected from, the examinee. Under-lying the interpretation of both kinds of scores are the concepts ofvalidity and accuracy of measurement and the assumption that thetests have been presented to students in a standard manner. Thefollowing sections discuss test administration circumstances and theconcepts of measurement accuracy, validity, norm-reference, andcriterion-reference as they influence the interpretation of standardizedtest scores.

Test Administrationrtiiidanitilial Iu .1 %Enid:adj./x(1 test is the rtinivaleilve of test

«irk tt from one student to aother. which akes possil I.1.e comparisons,,,crs. it is essential that this standardization not 1w eomponnsol

in lucial instructions. assistance, or failures in test security that Ind%lic( tively alter the content in unknown ways for some students.restiog conditions cannot, Of course. he identical for all examinees,hut they should be comparable in every way possible. Because mostedit( ational tests are regarded as measures of 11,\iluull ltri"t/miflit*.each student must have an opportunity to do his best. Saiph% yital conditions of lighting, heating, ventilation. s.ler;1 %%;,,y'ssoda( es are assumed, :Is well as rigid adherence to specil i el -

tions and time limits. Equally important, and much nice, ;i,11;t

to control, are the internal conditions that each student 'ori:e4s -.0 thetest. If a test score is to represent maximum performanc Ili effortand therefore the motivation to do well on the test mi.-- u, compar-able to that expected in the situations to which the test is related.Test manuals and administration directions give Mt]e pt ion to pre-test preparation and instruction of examinees. A r rplanation ofthe purpose and significance of the tests, without , Iiug to exhorta-tion. is preferable to presentation of the tests as kinired bm unex-plained task. Motivaium cannot be completely staodardized, of course.and the counselor or teacher with specific knowlechte of each studentas well as of the testing situation can best judge whether a given testscore should he accepted at face value. regarded with extra caution,or disregarded completely because of the circumstances in which itwas obtained.

Accuracy of Measurement

No single test score is completely representative of the "universe"of behavior for a person. A test score is based on a sample of behavior.and scores based on different samples can be expected to vary. Inter-pretation of the score must take into account the amount of suchvariation to be expected under given circumstances, This variation isusually expressed as "error of measurement", considered to be thedifference between the observed score and a hypothetical "true" scoreconsisting of the mean of a very large number of measurements ofthe same kind on the same person.

Standard Error of MeasurementThe standard deviation of the distribution of measurements on a

person, of which the person's true score is the mean (or equivalentlythe standard deviation of the differences between true and observedscores), is called the standard error of measurement (s.e.m.) for thatperson. Although the s.e.m. on a test varies from one person to an-

2

otlita. in prat tit( the aerate saran. 1)%ci a sample of persons is deter-mined 15 ;III tStiltlab 1,1 the 5.1'111. Oil the test for rich person.

1 he s.e.111. Of ICS( indicates the to Which :t SCOW,:

ublaillt'd by l'tprilied IltrAS1111'111VIA Of the same kind would varyaround the person's true score. It inay be pictured IS ShOWil ill Fig. 1.Within the IIR of r 1 s.e.nl front a persons true score will fall (i8e,7(of his obtained scores, and frir:, will fall within 2 s.e.m. If the s,ea,is ;3, for example, the probability is 6''j that ally observed score iswithin 3 points of the True score.

S. r n Joan: Lnlinu

1

SC011, hint, 1111,,tt 1Viet:Stift, 14 OncIttl t::::

c1

1'.!tlir L St1110.0,1 C'llt ',Hid ill 1,14 jot,

si .W1011111,11

The s.e.m. of a test is important becaus it emphasizes that anobserved test score is just an estimate and not a precisely determinednumber, and at the same time it quantifies the dependability of thescore. Test scores are sometimes reported as ranges or bands, typicallyextending 1 s.c.m. above and below the observed score, with or with-out the observed score indicated. Although the interpretation of suchranges is difficult to specify precisely in probability terms, they havethe advantage of emphasizing to users the limits of score depend-ability.

In evaluating scores on a test with reference to its s.e.m.. twopoints should be considered:

1. The reported s.c.m. is an estimate of the average s.c.m. for allpersons who take the test. Individuals differ in their variability as wellas hi their true scores, so the actual s.e.m. is not the same for allpersons. The s.c.m. of a well-constructed test should not be correlatedwith test scores, but in practice persons near the extremes of a dis-tribution are less likely to be measured accurately than those nearthe middle. This situation may arise, for example, if the test has in-sufficient "ceiling" so that differencs!s among the more able studentscannot be detected, or if it is so difficult for some students that theyrespond randomly or by excessive guessing.

2. l)illerent Incamimes used to estimate the s.e.m. of a test ascribedifferent sources of observed score variance to error. It is importantto keep in mind the sonrees of variance represented in the s.e.m.. and.therefore. the generalizahilit of the score. Internal consistency pro-cedures kuder-Ilichardson formulas. split-half. odd-eN en) or alter-nate form correlations generally include as error that variance due tosampling of test content and that (Inc to momenta, y factors thatdifferentially influence performance during a single testing occasion.Factors that would differentially affect scores on another occasion areascribed to "true" score valiance. Betesting at a different time withthe same instrument leads to the inclusion of differences due to testingoccasions. but not differences due to «intent sampling, in the errorvariance estimate.

Reliability CoefficientsAs Fig. 1 implies. the error ariance ordinarily is much smaller

than the total variance on a If it were not if all the variancewere error variance there would be no true score variance and thetest would have no value. Interpretation of the s.e.m. of a test dependsin part on how much smaller than total score variance it is. An s.e.m.of 3 has quite different significance for a test with a standard deviationof 4 than for a test with a standard deviation of 10. variame if agroup of test scores is composed of the error variance plus the tritescore variance, or

S' = S: S'observed true error

The relationship of these variances is usnally expressed as the ratioof true score variance to total score Variance, called the reliabilitycoefficient,

r

Because true score variance, and therefore total observed variance,is a function of the heterogeneity of the group being measured, areliability coefficient reflects both group and test characteristics,whereas the error component of scores on a test, (s.e.m. squared) isregarded as a characteristic of the test, fixed for all groups. In inter-pretation of an individual test score the s.e.m. most directly indicatesthe confidence that can be placed in the score, but the stability of thescore with respect to an entire group of scores, as indicated by thereliability coefficient, also should be known. Given the standarddeviation of the group in question one can, from (1) and (2) above.compute either s.e.m. or r from the other according to the familiarformulas

S.N./ 1 (3)4

r 1 (4)

Internal consistency reliability of the Nlinnesota Scholastic Apti-tude Test ( NISAT) was found to be .93 ( Layton, no date), whichindicates, according to formulas (3) and (4), a s.e.m. about one-fourthas large ( .07 = .26) as the standard deviation of 13.5, or about:3.7. Referring to the MSAT norm table we find that, if, for examplea student's "true" score is at the 71st percentile ( RS = 44), about two-thirds of the time in repeated testing his observed 11SAT score worldbe Iwtwern the 63rd and 79th percentiles. Ile would obtain a scorebelow the alth percentile less than 3% of the time.

Validity

The most critical information underlying the interpretation of testscores is how well the scores measure the characteristic dn. test is

being used to measure, i.e. how valid is the test for the purpose towhich it is being put. Because a test may be used for many purposes.it may have many validities and even several different kinds of validity,Different kinds of validity are generally classified into three categories:content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity.

Content ValidityWhen a test is used to determine a person's current knowledge or

performance in a domain represented by the test, evidence of howwell the test actually represents the domain i3 required to establishthe content validity of the test. Such evidence usually takes the formof an analysis of the domain into subdivisions, description of the sub-divisions, and identification of the items related to each subdivision.In educational achievement tests such subdivisions usually correspondto educational objectives. It is important that both subject mattercontent and process be included in the analysis and description of thetest.

Establishment of a test's content validity requires demonstrationn 1t only of what the test does measure but also of what it does notmeasure. Extraneous factors that ark: measured by a test but are notconceptually a part of its content lower its content validity. Two ofthe most common such influences are reading skill and working speed,because so many achievement tests are composed of written items andare given with time limits.

The careful analysis and description of the measurement domainwhich characterize the establishment of content validity distinguish itfrom "face validity", which refers to the superficial appearance, oreven name, of a test. Motivation may be better if test items appear to

5

examinees to be relevant to the purposes of testing; therefore, facevalidity may be desirable, but it is not the same as content validity.

Criterion-related ValidityWhen a test is used to predict a specific kind of performance other

than that measured by the test itself, evidence is required that thetest scores are indeed related to the other, criterion, performance. Suchevidence is most commonly presented in the form of a coefficient ofcorrelation between test and criterion scores.

Clearly, a test has as many validities as criteria. Thus the mediancorrelation of MSAT scores with grades of freshmen in Minnesotacolleges is .43, which demonstrates its validity as a measure of schol-astic aptitude; but the coefficients in individual colleges vary from.10 to .76.

Adequate evidence of criterion-related validity requires not only avalidity coefficient of sufficient size to be useful but also a criterionmeasure that truly represents the behavior or performance to be pre-dicted. School marks or grades are the most commonly used educa-tional criteria, and tests validated against such measures must be usedwith awareness of the limited scope of relevant behavior representedin the criterion. Nevertheless, because grades do represent a significantaspect of achievement and one that may be critical in determiningcontinuation and completion of an educational program, correlation oftest scores with grades is an important and meaningful indication ofvalidity.

Construct Validity

Criterion-related validity is invaluable for use of a test to aid inreaching a decision, e.g., choice of college, regarding a specific courseof action, the outcome of which can be measured in some way, e.g.,by subsequent course grades. However, we cannot expect that tests_will have been specifically validated against criteria for all decisionsof all students who may be aided by a better understanding of theircapabilities and characteristics as measured by tests. For effectivecounseling use of tests to help understand students and to help stu-dents understand themselves we must know "what the test measures",apart from its prediction of behavior in specific situations. Evidence ofthe meaning of test scores in terms of the psychological characteristics,or constructs, represented by the scores is termed "construct validity".Such evidence may take the form of analysis of the content of the test,synthesis of criterion-related validity coefficients, correlations withother tests, factor analysis, differences or similarities of scores of speci-fied groups ( e.g., age or educational levels ), item analysis, observationof test-taking behavior, and influence of training or experience on

6

scores. As with evidence of content validity, demonstration of whatthe test does not measure is as important as demonstration of what itdoes measure.

Interpretation of the Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT) for coun-seling secondary school students, for example, depends largely onconstruct validity. Although the DAT manual reports more than 5,000predictive validity coefficients, few counselors will have such evidenceavailable for their students and for criteria specifically relevant fortheir students, Focusing on the Mechanical Reasoning (MR) test wefind by examining the items that they deal with gears, levers, pulleys,the application of forces, and similar principles that are part of thecontent of physical mechanics. The items are presented pictorially,with verbal questions about the pictures, so the test requires somereading ability; but the questions and the words in them are short andshould be easily understood. Correlations of about .5 to .6 with theVerbal Reasoning test and with various intelligence tests indicate thatMR is measuring something different than verbal ability, and itemanalyses of .the very similar Mechanical Reasoning Test indicate thatit is measuring a general mechanical ability, not separate "leversability", "gears ability", etc. (Cronbach, 1970). On the average MRcorrelates higher with high school grades in science than in othersubjects (although it is not the best DAT predictor of science grades),and it was found to be an effective predictor of vocational school per-formance of machine shop students but not of auto mechanics stu-dents. Girls' scores on the test tend to be substantially lower and lessreliable than boys' scores and to have higher correlations with gradesin "unrelated" high school courses such as English and social science,suggesting that the test functions somewhat differently for the twosexes. Because MR is a revision of earlier Mechanical ComprehensionTests, evidence that scores on the latter are related to evaluations oftraining and job performance of various jobs c incerned with ma-chinery supports the construct validity of MR. Finally, MR scores arecorrelated about .4 with mechanical and scientific interests of boys asmeasured by the Kuder Preference Record and negligibly with otherinterests. Again, the relationships for girls are lower. Taken togetherthe evidence briefly summarized above supports the notion that MRmeasures a meaningful characteristic of students, one that is appro-priately labeled "mechanical reasoning", is not the same as generalintelligence, and is important in certain scientific and mechanicalpursuits though not in every activity labelled "mechanical".

Establishment of construct validity in a different domain is illus-trated by the development of the Academic Achievement (AACH)scale for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (Campbell andJohansson, 1966). This scale was developed by selecting SVIB itemsthat significantly differentiated between students with high grades in

7

college and high school and those with low grades. The scale corre-lated about .35 with high school and college grade averages in across-validation sample drawn from the same population as that onwhich the scale was constructed and also in a 25-year-old sample ofcollege freshmen tested in the 1930's. Low correlations with NISATscores show that the scale is not just another measure of scholasticaptitude. and the AACH score adds slightly to the multiple correla-tion of LISI1 and NISAT with college CPA. In 10-year and 25-yearfollow-up groups the scale showed substantial differences betweenstudents who dropped out of college and, in order, those who ob-tained BA, NIA, and PhD degrees. Scores were found to increase untilabout age 2S and then remain relatively stable, Examination of theitem content indicates that items scored positively represent scientific,aesthetic, and intellectual activities, whereas those scored negativelyinvolve sales, business, and manual skills. AACH scores of occupa-tional groups are ranked very much like the average educational levelsof the groups, with scientists (biologists, mathematicians, psychiatrists,physicists) at the top. and policemen, forest service men, pilots, andoffice workers at the bottom. Scores of outstanding persons in 10 occu-pations showed similar differences, with outstanding composers, novel-ists, astronauts, and psychologists scoring high and outstanding lifeinsurance salesmen, military men, and football coaches scoring low. Insummary the AACH scale appears to measure interest in activitiesthat lead to getting good grades and continuing in school, but it isnot a .measure of scholastic aptitude as such nor a predictor of successwithin occupations.

Norm-Referenced Scores

A norm-referenced score indicates an individual's standing in com-parison with a standard reference group of persons who have takenthe same test. In the interpretation of norm-referenced scores boththe nature of the score transformation and the nature of the referencegroup must be considered.

Score Transformations

The most commonly used norm-referenced scores are percentiles,standard scores, and grade equivalents.

PERCENTILES. Percentile scores indicate relative standing in agroup in very Much the way rank ordering does, and they are oftencalled percentile ranks. Because the meaning of a given rank dependson the size of the group ranked, percentiles adjust for group size by,in effect, indicating the equivalent of rank order in a standard groupof 100 scores. The concept of rank order and the analogy of "a ladderwith 100 rungs" are easy to understand, and percentiles are much used

8

because of the case with which their meaning can be communicated.The most likely misunderstanding of percentiles is an interpretationof them as indicating "percent correct'', and in reporting test resultsto students and parents it is important to insure that this interpretationis not made.

A distribution of percentile scores from a group comparable to thaton which the percentile norms are based, will be rectangular, that is,will have about the same number of cases at each score. There will be,for example, about the same number of scores at the 98th percentileas at the 50th. Because there are far more cases near the middle ofthe raw score distribution than near the extremes, a small raw scorechange results in a much larger percentile change near the middlethan near the extremes. This tendency to accentuate differences amongmid-range scores and de-emphasize differences among extreme scoresis a major disadvantage of percentiles.

STANDARD SCORES. This disadvantage is avoided by standard scores,in which differences are proportional to raw score differences. Stand-ard scores are anchored at the mean of the norm group distribution,with units proportional to the standard deviation of the norm groupdistribution. The basic standard score th,asformation ( z-score) is

made by subtracting the mean from each score and dividing the re-mainder by the standard deviation, producing a score with mean ofzero and standard deviation of 1. Because the fractional and negativescores produced by the z-score transformation are inconvenient, trans-formations that assign more units to the standard deviation and apositive score to the mean are usually used for score interpretation.Some standard score transformations commonly encountered by Min-nesota test users, are:

Score Mean S.D. Relation to z

Stanine 5 2 2z + 5

I TED, ACT 15 5 5z + 15'V -Score (Stanford HS) 50 10 10z + 50GATB 100 20 20z + 100CEEB 500 100 100z + 500

Because standard score differences are proportional to raw score dif-ferences, comparisons of scores in different parts of the distribution areless subject to misinterpretation than comparisons of percentiles; andstandard scores can be manipulated mathematically to obtain meaning-ful averages, correlations, etc. The meaning of a standard score is notimmediately clear, however, without some unden .coding of its relationto a normal distribution of scores. Fig. 2 pictures this relationship forseveral standard score scales as well as for percentiles.

9

L

S.1).

Pere( tit in 0.1 2.1 1:3.6 ,.3.1.1 1:3.6i111(1.val

1

Z-Scorn !JAI 1.0 21)I.. 1___ . ,

11) :30 .111 :ill lin 70 80i__. 1._ L

.5):1' Serve S 1ii 15 L/11 .30

J t _t I I

CEP./ 4 S,vre. 200 :300 400 500 600 7(1(1 SOO

_.

(:AT)) Sc,'' . 16 60 SO 100 1211 110 160

:3 .1 5 / 6 / 7 4 s 1Staniar I . 21

0Percent in .ri 77 12'; 17'; 20'; 17'3 12'; 7';

stanine

Percent) 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 5)) .0)1

l'igtu 2. Common >vere seal.~ and 01,

gq

CIIADE EQUIVALENTS. Whereas a percentile or a standard score indi-cates the location of a score within One specified norm group distribu-tion, a grade-equivalent score identifies a specific score distribution forwhich the obtained score is the median. The score distribution is forstudents at a particular grade level. For example, if the grade equiva-lent for a raw score of 38 is 4.0, 38 would be the median score of thenorm group of beginning 4th-graders. Decimal parts are added torepresent fractions of a 10 -month school year, so that a grade equiva-lent of 4.2, for example, represents the median of students tested atthe end of the second month of the 4th grade. Although there is ahypothetical norm group for each separate grade equivalent, in prac-tice only a few levels are tested within the range of grade equivalentsreported. A junior high school achievement test might be normed onstudents tested in the middle of the seventh (7.5), eighth (8.5) andninth (9.5) grades, for example. Intermediate grade equivalents aredetermined by interpolation, and equivalents below tly:! lowest grouptested and above the highest group tested are determined by extra-polation.

Because grade equivalents are especially convenient for measuringprogress, and because the significance of the score that is "built in" inthe form of reference to educational levels seems especially easy to

10

understand, grade equivalents arc widely used They have some dis-advantages, however, that should cause users to interpret them withspecial cautit,;,. Although the meaning of a grade equivalent of 6.6for a student in the middle of the (ith grade is clear, the meaningof the same score for a student in the middle of the 4th grade isless clear because we have no guidance as to whether such a deviationfrom the "expected" score is rare and significant or common. Certainlythe two scores represent different kinds of achievement and have quitedifferent meanings for the two students. Because students do not pro-gress at the same rate in different subjects nor in the same subject atdifferent levels, comparisons across subjects are difficult to interpret.At the high school level, where students are not taught every subjectevery year, grade equivalents have largely been abandoned for thisreason. Finally, grade equivalents seem especially likely to he mis-interpreted as performance standards. It seems easier to accept thenotion that, on the average, half the students in the class must hebelow the 50th percentile than that half must he below "grade level".

Perhaps the simplest source of misunderstanding of a test score tobe guarded against is confusion among the concepts underlying thevarious score transformations, A score of 75, for example, might be agrade equivalent with the decimal point omitted ( common practice),a percentile rank, a standard score: mean 50, or a standard score:mean 100. Knowledge and understanding of the specific transforma-tion is obviously essential to correct interpretation of the score.

Norm Groups

Because the meaning carried by norm-referenced scores is relativestanding in a defined reference group, the characteristics of the ref-erence group are most important.

SIZE. The group must have adequate size to provide stable results.If the norm group is a sample from a large population, it must belarge enough so that variations due to sampling are minimized.Even when the norm group can be regarded as the entire population,as, for example, with school or class norms, anomalous and possiblymisleading norms may be obtained if the group is very small. For thisreason, local norms computed in the Minnesota High School StatewideTesting Program are based on two years' testing if possible when thesize of a single class is less than 50.

REPRESENTATIVENESS. Adequate size does not insure that a normgroup will be adequately representative of the population specified.Norm groups are frequently difficult to obtain, and it is rare thatsamples can be randomly selected. The factors that do influence selec-tion are likely to cause the norm group to be unrepresentative in un-known ways. Norms for the MSAT are based on the scores of nearly

11

every Minnesota high school junior in a given year, and their represen-tativeness is thereby assured. Minnesota norms for tests in the HighSchool Statewide Testing Program, on the other hand, must be basedon substantially less than the total population of Minnesota studentsin a given class because testing practices vary considerably amongschools. To provide more assurance of representativeness norms forthese tests are based on scores of students from schools whose com-bined NISAT score distribution is the same as that of the state as awhole. To the extent that the distributions of ability being normedparallel the distribution of scholastic aptitude measured by MSAT,this procedurn increases the representativeness of the norms. "Usernorms", which arc based on all the students from a defined populationwho happen to have taken the test, should be especially suspect.

Cunu Excv. Norms must be representative not only at the time theyare developed but also at the time they are used. Norms that are notcurrent may be misleading because they do not reflect educational andoccupational changes. The MSAT, for example, was normed in 1959 onentering Minnesota college freshmen who had been tested as highschool juniors. To provide consistency of interpretation from year toyear this norm has been continued even though it cannot be relied onto represent the present Minnesota college population. Consequently,more current norms for high school juniors and various types of col-leges also arc presented.

APPROPRIATENESS. Given technical soundness in the form of ade-quate size, representativeness, and currency of a norm group, it isalso important to consider the appropriateness of a norm group bothfor the student and for the decisions to be made. The student may becurrently a member of the populations represented by some norms, sotheir appropriateness for the student is assured. A 9th-grade Minnesotastudent who has taken the Lorge-Thornlike Intelligence Test (LTIT)and the Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED) is a memberof the populations represented by local school, Minnesota, and na-tional norms for each test,. all of which are appropriate for him. For-decisions about his educational experiences in the immediate future,the local norms would be most appropriate because they indicate howhe compares with his classmates in various areas. For longer-rangeplanning the Minnesota norms, because they represent the studentswith whom he would most likely be compared in other high schoolsor post-high school institutions, would be more helpful. National aswell as state norms might be used in evaluating how well the school'seducational program achieved in various domains the kind of educa-tional development expected for students with ability levels like thosein the school.

For example, Alice's LTIT Verbal and Non-verbal scores of 59 and52 put her at the 73rd percentile according to 9th-grade Minnesota

12

limns, indicating :in above-average student. On local norms for herschool, however, these scores are at the 99th and 93rd percentiles,respectively, which suggest that she is likely to move much morerapidly than most of her classmates and may require special materialto enable her to apply her abilities appropriately. In another schoolBrian's 9th-grade LT1T scores of 60 and 51 give him local percentilescores of 49 and 46, indicating an average student who should progresswith the rest of the class. His percentiles of 75 and 70 on state norms,however, show above average ability, suggesting that his educationalprogram should be one that will support many possible post-highschool options.

Some norms represent populations of which the student is onlypotentially, not currently, a member. The MSAT, for example, offersboth types. Each student who takes the test is clearly a member of thehigh school junior norm group, but only potentially a Minnesota col-lege freshman, Similarly, the Minnesota Vocational-Technical Schoolnorms for scores on the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) andMinnesota Vocational Interest Inventory (MVII) represent applic artswho successfully completed various training programs. Such norms in-dicate not only relative standing in the norm population, but alsowhether it is reasonable to consider the student as a member of thepopulation in the first place. Cathy's MSAT score of 32 is average(53rd percentile) among high school juniors and also among Minne-sota junior college freshmen (51st percentile ), somewhat below aver-age among State College freshmen (35th percentile), and substantiallybelow average among liberal arts college freshmen (11th percentile),Nevertheless, Cathy clearly is a potential member of any of thesegroups, and it is reasonable to explore additional information about allthree types of college. Douglas' MSAT score of 20, however, givinghim a liberal arts college percentile of 1, indicates not only thatDouglas' chances of successful performance in most Minnesota liberalarts colleges are quite low but also that his more specific estimates ofperformance in such colleges (see "Criterion-Referenced Scores")may not be applicable to Douglas because he is quite unlike the popu-lations on which they are based. He is, however, a potential memberof the junior college population .(12th percentile), and performanceestimates based on this group would be meaningful. It is importantto note that, although members of such norm groups are identifiedafter they become members of the defined population, their status, atthe time they were tested was the same as that of the students to whomthe norms are applied. Thus the Minnesota college freshmen normgroups were tested as high school juniors, and the vocational - technicalprogram graduates were tested as applicants for the programs. Somenorms, such as those often reported for employees in various occupa-tions, are based on groups of persons already in the defined popula-

13

tion at the time they are tested. In applying such norms to personswho are only potential members of the norm population, the influenceon the test results of status at time of testing must be considered.

Multi-Score Tests

PROFILES. Although the principles of test interpretation applywhether there is a single score or several, additional considerationsare involved in tests or test batteries that produce multiple scores.Such scores are commonly presented on pro files, which offer zi con-venient means of displaying several items of information. A testprofile is simply a graphic representation of several scores on compar-able scales. Fig. 3 is an example of one such profile, showing Edwin's

99

95

90

85

80

75

70

60

Luz 50

6.w 40

30

25

20

15

10

PROFILE OF PERCENTILE RANKS

Vgdial Howled As 'net Spin. 41.ch nleal CI. killR In. Ability lionsaning Relation. Peel mina Sc. 6 Ace, YR* NA

Figure 3. Edwin's DAT profile14

99

95

90

85

80

75

70

60

50

40

30

25

20

15

10

5

Minnesota percentile scores on the DAT plotted as vertical barsextending above or below the midpoint of the score range for eachtest. Profiles are often prepared also with adjacent scores connected toeach other, rather than to the midpoint of the scales, with straightlines, as in Fig. 4, The key word in the definition , I' a test profile is"comparable". It is inappropriate to profile raw scores because thereis no basis for comparing raw scores on one test with those on another.The raw scores must be transformed to scales with comparable units,such as percentiles or standard scores. Furthermore, the transforma-tions for all tests must be based on the same norm group. The provi-sion of such comparability was an important objective and is now abasic feature of standardized batteries of aptitude and achievementtests.

DIFFEBENCE sconEs. Because profiles do make score comparisoneasy, it is important to guard against over-interpretation of the differ-ences that appear. The concept of error of measurement is especiallyimportant in evaluating differences in scores because the measurementerrors cumulate, making the differences less reliable than the separatescores. In psychometric terms the standard error of the difference,S. E.D, is given by

S. E.D = + S202 (5)where Sol and are the standard errors of the two tests whose scoresare being compared. If the two standard errors are equal, formula (5)indicates that S.E.D is about 1.4 times the standard errors of the in-dividual tests. Computation of S.E.D is cumbersome, and test pub-lishers commonly offer convenient guides to the significance of scoredikierences. When scores are reported as percentile bands, as on Schooland College Ability Tests and Sequential Tests of Educational Prog-ress, bands that do not overlap are regarded as representing reliablydifferent true scores. The manual for the High School StanfordAchievement Test ( SAT) includes a table of standard errors of differ-ence for each pair of tests in the battery, which should be consultedin evaluating SAT profiles. The reported S.E.D of 5 for Spelling andNumerical Competence, for example, indicates that only one-third ofthe time would differences as large as 5 be obtained if the true scoresfor these abilities are equal, and only 5% of the time would differ-ences as large as 10 be obtained.

Nearly all of the SAT S.E.D's range from 4 to 6, although a feware as small as 3. Standardized tests used for individual student diag-nosis and guidance should generally have reliabilities close to .9,which will provide S.E.D's of about half a standard deviation (5 pointson the SAT standard score scale). Following a practice established bythe publishers of the DAT, the profiles for the multi-score tests in the

15

Minnesota Statewide Testing Program are printed with 1 inch =I S.D.S.E.D ( approximately ), so that differences of one inch or more

correspond to a critical ratio of 2 (5 percent significance level) andmay be regarded as significantly different. It is suggested that differ-ences of one-half inch be interpreted if confirmed by other evidence.Comparison of Edwin's DAT scores in Fig. 3 with the 50th percentilereference line indicates that his scores arc generally low, only thescore on Mechanical Reasoning reaching the average level. Of theindividual scores, Mechanical Reasoning is significantly different fromall except perhaps Space Relations; whereas the others, despite theirapparent differences, are sufficiently similar that differences amongthem should not be emphasized.

The "one-inch rule" is approximate, of course. It is conservativewhen the reliabilities of the tests exceed .9; and, of the tests in theMinnesota Statewide Testing Program, the Arithmetic ApplicationsTest in the Stanford Advanced battery, Iowa Tests of Basic SkillsArithmetic Problems and \York-Study Skills snbtests, and DAT Me-chanical Reasoning test (for girls ) have reliabilities too low for scoredifferences to be interpreted in this way.

PROFILE APPLICATIONS. Profiles conveniently display both theoverall level of a student's scores and areas of strength or weakness.Thus Frank's 11th -grade 1TED scores in Fig. 4 show generally superiorperformance, with special strength in mathematics and some weaknessin English expression, literature, and vocabulary. The scores providea basis for discussion with Frank of his high school program for theremainder of his junior and senior year and of his post-high schoolplans. The counselor may wish to suggest that Frank concentrate onimproving his communication skills in preparation for college work.Fig. 4 illustrates another use of profiles, namely for examining change.Frank's performance is very consistent from the 9th- to the 11th- grade,except for a fairly sizable improvement in his social studies score. Thischange may reflect au unusual course sequence in Frank's case, orperhaps the development of new interests.

A test profile is a convenient way to summarize group as well asindividual test performance. Overall performance of a school or classcan be evaluated in comparison with the norm-group average, andstrengths and weaknesses can be noted in the same way as with in-dividual scores. Similarly the scores of the same group at two differenttimes or of two different groups at the same time can be plotted onone profile to facilitate group comparisons and reveal changes. Specialcare must be taken in evaluating the magnitude of group differencesin terms of score scales based on individuals, because the mean scoresof groups are much less variable than individual scores. Whereas anindividual percentile score of 60,differs rather inconsequentially fromthe midpoint of the norm group, a group mean at the 60th percentile

16

is likely to be extremely high in comparison with other groups. Preciseinterpretation of such differences requires norms of group means.

99

95

90

8075

70

2 60

tt 50

It' 40

3025

20

10

5

PROFILE OF PERCENTILE RANKS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SDC 6 o

soc NAT. cop. GUSH?. moC. AOC. 113C. SAC GEN vOCaa COMP U9C99u3 SC,. 11,..qr99 .., . HOC ...SO. LET. 5.7 1.8 811

x lit i grade0 C 9th grade

Figure -I. Frank s 11.F.1) scurf. s

99

95

90

BO

75

70

60:n

50 =,

r.43

22

25

20

10

To learn more about the nature of group differences revealed bythe profile it may be helpful to examine the distributions of scores forindividual tests. Fig: 5 shows 9th-grade percentile scores for the Min-nesota norm group and the local percentiles for one school plottedagainst raw scores on the SAT-HS English Test. (Either percentilescores or cumulative percentages can be used, but both groups mustbe represented in the same way.) The school's average score is some-what below the state mean, but the graph shows that this differenceappears almost entirely in the lower part of the score distribution.This evidence does not explain the lower mean score, of course. Onepossibility is that the curriculum or the instruction is such that in-sufficient attention has been given to the less able students. An equallytenable hypothesis is that the English achievement scores reflect asimilar distribution of learning ability of the students in the school.

17

This hypothesis could be checked by examining scores of the samestudents on a general intelligence test such as Urn' in comparisonwith state norms.

Standard Score

Figure 5. SAT-IiS English score distributions for state and a localgroup.

SIMILARITY INDEXES. We sometimes wish to compare a student'sscores with each of several reference groups. This may be done eitherby transforming the student's scores into standard scores or percentilesbased on each reference group in turn, or by displaying the referencegroup distributions as well as ehe student's performance in terms of asingle norm. Minnesota vocaijonal training program norms for theGATI3 and MVII are of the latter type. As a student's scores are com-pared wit: each of several groups and similarities and differences arenoted, questions of how different the student is from a given group,or which group he is most like, arise; and the multiple comparisonsproduce more information than even profiles can conveniently sum-marize. To summarize such comparisons and obtain answers to ques-tions like those above, indexes of profile similarity are used. One such

18

index, the centour score, is reported as part of the Statewide Voca-tional Testing Program. Contour scores are like the scores on a target,where the bullseye, or the crnier (not the top) of the reference group,gets a score of 100, and the rings successively fto ther in any directionfrom the center get successively lower scores. A centour score of zero,like missing the target completely, corresponds to a set of test scoresoutside of the "tcst space" occupied by any scores in the referencegroup. (In actual use (vigour scores a e usually based on more thantwo test scores, and therefore more than two dimensions, and takeinto account not just differences in individual scores but also in scorecombinations. Consequently the "target" is elliptical rather thanround, and multi-dimensional rather than fiat.) Just as a student'spercentile gives the percentage of scores in the norm group lowerthan his, the ecntour score gives the percentage of score combinationsin the norm group "further out than his. Like all summaries, centourscores both reveal and conceal information. A student's centour scoresreveal his similarity simultaneously to a large number of referencegroups in which he may be interested. At the same time they concealthe specific ways in which he is similar to and different from each ofthem. Contour scores of 50 for three different groups may result froma student's having all higher scores than the iiverage for one group,all lower scores than the average for another, and some higher andsome lower than the average for the third. The differences are im-portant, and to discover them we must go back to each profile andconsider it in detail.

For example, Greg's centour scores (Table 1) show little similarityto any of the 18 Minnesota Vocational School training programs forwhich the scores are reported. Examination of his aptitude scoresindicates that they are all lower, some of them substantially lower,than average for students in these programs. These are not the onlytraining programs available, of course, nor do these tests measure allimportant abilities. It will be necessary for the counselor to explorewith Greg his possible strengths in other areas and the ways in whichthese strengths match possible training or job opportunities.

Helen's scores, like Greg's, are dissimilar to those of graduates ofall 18 programs, but the reason is quite different in her case. Most ofher aptitude scores are quite high in comparison with the vocationalschool population. Helen may want to start with a more academicprogram, perhaps in a junior college, where she would have anopportunity more gradually to narrow her focus on a career programor a college transfer curriculum.

Although none of Irene's contour scores is high, she does haveseveral Agri-technology, Clerical training, Cosmetology that sug-gest a careful look at these fiells. Her weakest ability, according to

19

TABLE 1

SVTP Scores for Five Students

Contours Greg Helen Irene Jerry Karen

1. Aircraft Nlechanies 0 0 I 50 1

2. Agri-Technology 0 9 21 30 7

3. Autonmtives 3 0 12 82 20

4. Electronic 0 2 1 230 9

5. Carpentry 0 0 0 68 1

6. Farm Equipment Nleeh.. , 0 0 2 82 5

7. Machine Shop 0 0 1 82 5

S. Mcch Drafting. 0 0 0 90 4

9. Power Home Elect: 1 0 4 81 7

10. Printing, Graphics 4 1 2 82 12

11. Welding 7 0 6 68 11

12. Accounting 0 3 6 (13 29

13. Clerical 0 2 25 64 68

14. Cosmetology 0 3 21 44 71

15. Data Processing 0 3 3 60 27

16. Practical Nursing. 0 16 12 68 74

17. Sales 0 0 4 72 34

18. Secretarial 0 20 10 48 70

Aptitudes1. General 70 124 78 113 1072. Verbal 78 139 96 100 1043. Numerical 54 117 81 107 1074. Spatial 97 117 94 137 101

5. Form Perception 84 129 107 111 1406. Clerical Perception ..... 100 129 115 118 1307. Motor 82 103 101 111 132

20

the aptitude scores, is in working with numbers (which also influencesthe G score). Neither the contour scores nor the aptitude scores pro-vide any information about the relative importance of this weakness;':r various occupations, but both the "construct validity" of numericalability and the lower mean N score of the Cosmetology studentssuggest that it may be less significant in the Cosmetology programthan in either of the other two.

In contrast to the other students, Jerry's scores fall in the areawhere all the training groups overlap. Asa result, all of his centourscores are high, including several that are very high. Although thehigh centour scores provide some guidance, Jerry's ability pattern fitswell into all the training groups, and other considerations than hisabilities will likely determine his choice.

The pattern of Karen's scores is similar to Irene's, but all of heraptitude scores are higher, and this difference is reflected in highercontour scores in more areas. In addition to clerical and cosmetologytraining, practical nursing and secretarial training offer good possi-bilities.

It is important to note that similarity indexes, like all norm-ref-crenced scores, do not in themselves indicate the likelihood of behaviorof any kind other than that required by the tests themselves. To pre-dict from the test scores to behavior in other situations we must relyon information about test validity, which is not introduced or repre-sented by the norming process.

INTEREST PROFILES, Interest profiles arc a special case of scorerepresentation by profile. 13ecause of the way occupational scales areconstructed, the practice has developed of norming each scale on itsown occupational group, rather than on a single standard referencegroup for all scales. On the SVIB and NIVII the scores are standardscores with an occupational group mean of 50 and S.D. of 10; on theKudcr Occupational Interest Survey the scores are, in effect, corre-lations between the students' responses and those of each referencegroup. Such profiles must be interpreted somewhat differently fromthose based on a single norm group. To provide a comparable refer-ence point the SVIB and Mill profiles show the mid-third range ofscores for a standard men-in-general group on each scale. These con-siderations do not apply to the Basic Scales of the SV113 or the Ho-mogeneous Scales of the NINTH, which in each case are all normcd ona single reference group.

21

Criterion-Referenced Scores

Whereas norm-referencing procedures provide meaning to testscores in terms of relative standing in a defined group of persons,criterion - referencing provides meaning in terms Of expected behavior.The behavior may be defined by the test content itself, in which casewe h.wc COlitellt scores, or by a separate ( criterion ) measure, in whichcase we have predicted scores.

Content Scores

Scores on a content-referenced scale are summaries of the behavioron the test. Rate scores ( e.g. reading rate, typing speed ) and per-centage scores are commonly used to represent performance, but tohave meaning such scores must be accompanied by definitions ofthe content itself. Thus we have a "reading rate of 247 wpm on pas-sages from The Readers' Digest," or "83 percent accuracy on 2-digitby 2-digit multiplication problems". If brief descriptions do not sufficeto define the content, samples or examples may be used, such as"ability to spell 77 percent of words such as ambitious, anticipate,disappoint, eligible, indefinite, liability, miniature, oblige, sympathy,treasurer". To be most useful the content referred to should be notjust described but scaled, so that mastery of a specified level impliesmastery of all easier levels. Such scaling is just beginning in somefields, and few standardized instruments are available that reflect it.A fundamental requirement for the use of content-referenced scores,of course, is satisfactory content validity.

Predicted Scores

If criterion-related validity has been demonstrated, the validityrelationship can be used to report test performance directly in termsof expected criterion behavior. This is usually done in the form ofeither criterion estimates or expectancy tables or graphs.

CurrEmox ESTIMATES. Given a linear relationship between a testscore (or scores) and a criterion variable, as reflected by a significantvalidity coefficient, an individual's expected score on the criterionvariable can be predicted by the corresponding regression equation.From the correlation of .60 between College Aptitude Rating ( CAR )and first-term grades (GPA) of University of Minnesota-Duluth fresh-men, for example, we obtain the following equation for predictingGPA from CAR, where CAR is one-half the sum of high school rank(FISH) plus MSAT college percentile:

GPA = .74 -I- .02 CAR (6)

From this equation we learn that the predicted UMD GPA corre-sponding to the minimum acceptable CAR of 40 is 1.54.

22

Like any test scores predicted scores are accompanied by unced-Utility. In the case of predicted scores, however, this uncertainty iscaused not only by the error of measurement of the test score, butalso by measurement error in the criterion and by lack of perfectcorrelation between the true scores of the two measures. The combina-tion of these three sources of error usually results i» considerable im-precision in prediction, and it is important that this uncertainty berecognized in interpreting predicted scores. It is usually expressed asthe standard error of estimate, computed as

S.1E,t = Se 1_r'', (7)

where r is the validity coefficient and Sc is the criterion standard devi-ation, and interpreted as the standard deviation of observed criterionscores around each predicted score. Fig. 6 portrays the standarderror of estimate in relation to the standard deviation of criterionscores.

/Nlean

Itottression line

Predicted scoreS.F. est

Predictor Predictor score

Figure 6. Itelation of standard error of estimate to criterion standarddeviation,

In the case of the UMD regression equation discussed above thestandard error of estimate is computed from the validity coefficientand the criterion S.D. to be .60. This figure, combined with the pre-dicted GPA obtained above, indicates that of students with a CARof 40 two-thirds will obtain CPA's between .94 and 2.14 and 95%will obtain GPA's between .34 and 2.74. The importance of taking intoaccount the error of estimate in interpreting predicted scores is indi-cated by the width of the range needed to provide considerable as-surance that the criterion score will indeed be included in the pre-dieted range.

23

Predicted scores are used, of course, not for persons whose criterionscores are known, but for a new group of individuals (e.g., applicants)who have not been measured on the criterion. The standard error ofestimate does not take into account sai ,:ing error in determiningthe regression equation. Interpretation of a predicted score and itsassociated estimate of precision assumes that the score comes fromthe same population represented by the sample on which the regres-sion equation was determined and that this sample is large enough toprovide accurate estimates of the regression parameters for the popu-lation.

Expectancy Tables

Instead of predicting a specific criterion score and accompanyingconfidence band corresponding to each test score, a common practiceis to report the probability of obtaining a criterion score within cer-tain fixed ranges or above certain points. The criterion ranges forwhich probabilities are given are the same for all test scores, and theprobabilities usually are reported for test score ranges rather than forindividual scores. The Minnesota State-wide Testing Program ex-pectancy tables relating high school rank (HSR) and MSAT scoreto first-term grades in each Minnesota college are examples of thismethod of criterion - referenced score interpretation. These tables wereproduced by determining the proportions.of students in each fifth ofthe predictor distribution who obtained a college grade average ofC or better and of B or better. Application of the tables can be illus-trated with the scores of Linda, who has always done above averagebut not outstanding Work in school (HSR=63) and has been develop-ing a serious interest in art, in which she seems to have some talent.She wants a "good, general education" and plans to obtain it at theUniversity of Minnesota, which she can attend while living at home.Her MSAT score of 36 is consistent with her high school record(junior percentile =63), and is sufficient to enter the College ofLiberal Arts (college percentile=58). Linda's HSR is in the 60-79range of the CLA expectancy table, which is clearly below averagefor CLA females (above 12% and below 59%) but indicates a reason-able probability (67%) of obtaining at least a C average. Her chancesof getting a B average or better are nit high (10%). Informationprovided by the MSAT expectancy table is consistent. Her collegepercentile, in the 40-59 range, is in the lowest quarter of enteringCLA students and shows grade probabilities nearly identical to theHSR table. Linda has been considering, besides CLA, the applied artsprogram in the School of Home Economics. According to the AFHEexpectancy tables Linda's scores are below average for entering fresh-men here also, but not quite so far below, and her chances of gettingsatisfactory gmi''os are somewhat higher (79% and 80%). Properlyinterpreted tbeL,i data can help Linda understand some differences

24

between the two colleges, consider the kind of program and level ofintellectual challenge most appropriate for her, and stimulate her toseek further information to help her resolve the choice.

In the Minnesota expectancy tables the HO ranges are based onthe within-school FISH percentiles, whereas the MSAT ranges arebased on the percentile scores for entering college freshmen. Thus,the sets of tables for the tv.n variables present somewhat differentinformation, not only because of their different content but also be-cause they use different divisions of the total ability range. If the tablesfor each college were based on score ranges dividing the entering stu-dents in that college into approximately equal proportions, the tableswould be more useful for that college; but, because the Statewideexpectancy tables are intended for use in guidance of students con-sidering attendance at various colleges, the same predictor ranges areused for all colleges to facilitate comparisons and avoid confusion. Acompromise is offered for the more selective institutions by dividingthe top range into two, making six ranges in all. Caution should there-fore be used to avoid comparing grade expectations for scores in thetop category (upper 10%) for these schools with expectations forscores in the top category (upper 20%) for the other colleges.

In comparison with criterion estimates based on regression equa-tions, expectancy tables do not require a normal bivariate distributionunderlying their interpretation, and they avoid an unwarranted ap-pearance of precision. The uncertainties associated with measurementerror and degree of relationship between the variables are reflectedby the probability figures themselves. However, there are importantcautions to be observed in using expectancy tables, cautions whichreflect the fact that the tabled figures are actually proportions ofprevious classes rather than probabilities of future performance. (Ithas been suggested that they be called experience tables rather thanexpectancy tables.) First, in interpreting the figures as expectanciesfor new students we must assume that the composition of the newclasses will be the same with respect to academic ability as the classeson which the tables are based and that they will be treated the same,i.e., that grading practices will remain the same.. (Theoretically, it isunnecessary to assume that class composition remains the same ifabsolute marking standards do not change; but, because most gradingis at least partly relative, it is more realistic to expect that a markedchange in class composition will charge the expectancies.) Enteringclasses will differ somewhat from year to year; but, unless there is adefinite change in policy, such as an increase in admission standards,the differences are likely to be slight enough to maintain the validityof the expectancy tables. Over a period of years, however, suchchanges can cumulate, so the tables must either he reasonably currentor be accompanied by evidence of consistency, such as predictor and

25

criterion distributions that remain the same from year to year, if theyare to be relied on. Second, it is important that each table be basedon a group large enough to provide stable proportions. Like the stand-ard error of estimate the expectancies reflect uncertainty due tomeasurement mid prediction error but not that due to sampling varia-tion. The number of cases in each predictor range ( i.e., each row ofthe Statewide tables) determines the stability of the proportions forthat range. It is for this reason that predictors are grouped into justfive or six categories rather than a larger number that would permitmore discriminating probability estimates. As it is, some ranges forsmall schools and even for large schools with skewed predictor dis-tributions have too few cases for the computation of reliable propor-tions. The tables contain no expectancies for predictor ranges withfewer than 10 cases, but even with an N of 1) the standard error ofthe percentage may be as large as 16. With an N Of 50 the standarderror is not larger than 7. Because the classes on which the percentagesare based are obviously not random samples from the schools' popu-lations of entering students, interpretation of the standard error interms of expected variation for future classes is not possible; but it isclear that the expectancies based on small N's should be used withextra caution. Finally, expectancy tables are necessarily based on theexperiences of enrolled students; and these students form population sthat differ from high school seniors in ways varying from one collegeto another as a result of both college admissions policies and practicesand student? college selection decisions. To refer a student's score toa given expectancy table it must be reasonable to consider him a po-tential member of the population on which the table is based. If thetable shows no scores in the range containing the student's score,- it isclear that the table is not applicable to him. Even if a small percentageof the class had similar predictor scores, these students were atypicalof their classmates with respect to these scores; and, inasmuch as theywere enrolled despite this atypicality, they are likely to be atypicalin unknown ways of students with similar scores. Thus, not only ex-pectancies based on small N's, -but also those based on small propor-tions of the class, should be viewed with caution.

Consider, for example, Michael's HSR of 36. The expectancy tablefor the U of M College of Liberal Arts indicates that Michael's chancesof obtaining passing grades (57%) or a 13 average or better (11%)are slightly larger than those of boys with HSR's in the range of 40-59.The first explanation to be considered for anomalies of this kind inthe tables is a small number of cases, but in this case the N of about70 (4% of 1981) should be sufficient to avoid fluctuations of this sizemerely because of sampling error. As noted above, students whoenroll in a college despite very low predictor scores are likely to havespecial strengths in other areas or high scores on other predictors.

26

Unless Michael has such strengths lie would be unwise to rely tooheavily on the tabled expeetancies. For CLA, of course, because ofthe admissions requirement of an itverage FISH and MSAT percentileof 50, enrolled students with IISR's of 20-39 can be expected to haveNISAT percentiles of at least 61-SO.

When predictions of the same criterion arc made front more thanone predictor, the results will not always agree. Norma is thinking ofgoing to St. Cloud State College, and referral of her MSAT percentileof 40 to the expectancy table indicates that her chances of obtainingpassing grades on the average are 70%, but .according to her FISHof 39 her chances of getting a C average arc only 30%. Which iscorrect? Part of the discrepancy may be ascribed to the fact thatNorma's scores are at the upper edge of one interval and at the loweredge of the other. The coarse grouping results in some inaccuracy.Thus Norma's chances for a C average arc undoubtedly more likethose of a student with MR of 40, for which the tabled probability is57%, than like those of a student whose FIST . is 20, which is inNorma's interval with 30% probability. Some interpolation Of proba-bilities may be made to adjust for this phenomenon, but even withsuch adjustments Norma's two predictions are discrepant. To deter-mine which is more valid, Norma should consider with her counselorsuch information as whether special problems or responsibilities,which would not affect her college work, have held her high schoolgrades down; whether her other test scores confirm the ability indi-cated by the MSAT score or suggest that it is singularly high; whetherNorma's academic motivation and study habits have changed in sucha way as to give her a better chance of success in college than herhigh school grades' indicate.

As the considerations above suggest, the expectancy tables do notin themselves decide whether or not a student should attend a givencollege. The same probability of success that leads one student tochoose a college may lead another to look elsewhere. A 30% chanceof success may encourage one student, whereas a 70% chance maydiscourage another. Nor should the tables be used to "shop" for acollege by seeking to identify the college ;71 which the student has thebest chance of obtaining good grades. 'ant they do provide informa-tion, suggest additional questions, and supply some answers to helpclarify tentative choices or narrow the field of possibilities.

DISCREPANCY SCORES. Expectancy tables may be used not only tohelp reach decisions about the future but also to help explain the past.In the latter application, comparison of actual performance with ex-pectancies based on previous scores may aid a counselor in under-standing that performance. Quite different explanations of a student'sfailing grades, and different courses of action, may be indicated if

27

his probability of a passing average were, say 17%, than if it were70%.

Expectancy tables especially intended for this kind of interpreta-tion, rather than prediction, of performance are sometimes providedfor combinations of ability and achievement test scores. The manualfor the SAT High School Battery presents quartile scores for eachachievement test based on the distributions of scores for students ineach stanine on the Otis Gamma Mental Ability Test. Orley's stanuardscore of 57 on the English test puts him well above average (nationalnorms) for 11th-graders in general, but more than three-fourths of11th-grade students with Otis scores in the 8th stanine, as his is, scorehigher. This information may lead the teacher or counselor to a differ-ent interpretation of his English score than its percentile equivalentalone. Because the interest in expectancy tables of this kind is on thediscrepancy betwen the ability and achievement scores, they are dis-cussed here under the heading of '!discrepancy scores"; but in realitysuch expectancy tables do not give criterion-referenced scores at all.Neither the ability test nor the achievement test is a criterion. Theability test, rather, is used to divide the norm group into morehomogeneous subgroups so that more specific norms can be provided.Emphasis on the norm-referenced character of this kind of informa-tion may help to avoid reification of score differences into conceptssuch as "underachiever" and "overachiever". At the very least it isimportant to be aware of the differences between criterion-referencedand norm-referenced expectancy tables. Thorndike (1967) has pointedout a paradox in connection with the latter, namely that their valuedepends on the existence of moderate, rather than very high or verylow, relationships between abilit; and achievement scores. If the rela-tionship is very low, of course, achievement norms for low-abilitystudents' will not be appreciably different than those for high-abilitystudents; and subdivision of the norm group will be useless. If therelationship is extremely high, on the other hand, the tests will bemeasuring much the same thing; and discrepancies between scores onthe two instruments will be due largely to measurement error and notsubject to meaningful interpretation. For prediction purposes, ofcourse, the higher the relationship represented in an expectancy table,the more helpful is the information.

Selected References

This summary of test interpretation principles is clearly no morethan an overview of the psychometric technology that test users shouldunderstand if they are to interpret and apply test results effectively.It is hoped that it will serve both as a quick reference and as a reviewand reminder. For more detailed exposition both of general principles

28

and of specific information about tests commonly used in Minnesota,the following references may be consulted.

Anastasi, A, Psychological Testing (3rd cd.). New York: Macmil-lan, 1968.

This is a sound and comprehensive text, based on a thoroughcoverage of the relevant literature.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., and Wesman, A. G. Counselingfrom Profiles. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1951.

The case studies that arc presented in this booklet are amongthe best aids that have appeared for bridging the gap betweentest scores and the reality behind the scores.

Campbell, D. P., and Johansson, C. B. "Academic interests, scholas-tic achievements and eventual occupation". Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 1966, 13, 416-424.

Exemplifies a varied approach to establishing the meaning of anew psychometric scale.

Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of Psychological Testing ( 3rd ed.) NewYork: Harper and Row, 1970.

In addition to a thorough and excellent coverage of the field,this text includes the latest insights into measurement principlesresulting from the author's continuing research in the field.

Gardner, E. T. "Interpreting Achievement ProfilesUses and Warn-ings". Measurement in Education, 1970, 1, ( 2), 1-11.

An especially helpful issue new series of reports from the.National Council on Measurement on Education.

Goldman, L. Using Tests in Counseling. ( 2d ed.), New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.

As the title implies, in addition to presenting the fundamentalsof test score interpretation, this text carries the process furtherinto applications in the counseling situation.

Layton, W. L. Construction of a short form of the Ohio State Uni-versity Psychological Examination. Student Counseling Bureau, Uni-versity of Minnesota.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals.Washington, D. C. American Psychological Association, 1966.

Thorndike, R. L. Expectancy tables sense and nonsense. Paperpresented to the 17th Annual Conference of the Minnesota StatewideTesting Programs, Minneapolis, September 16, 1967.

Thorndike, R. L. (ed.) Educational Measurement, Washington,D. C.: American Council on Education, 1971.

The state of the art in educational measurement is representedby this compendium of articles by experts on the major tech-nical topics in the field.

29

Minnesota State-Wide Norms

for

LORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS

Form 1, Level E (Grades 7 & 8) and Level F (Grade 9)

1966

Males and Females Combined

These norms are for pupils who took the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests (LTIT) in the fall of1965, through the Minnesota High School State-WideTesting Program and are based on the "Multi-LevelEdition" published in 1964.

Grade N (Schools) N (Students)7 147 9,8998 68 4,9979 31 2,671

Tables are provided for the two batteries, Verbaland Nonverbal, and for the Total Score. The TotalScore is the sum of the Verbal and Nonverbal rawscores.

The representativeness of these norms was checkedby comparing the Ivlinnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test(MSAT) distribution for schools using LTIT at eachgrade level with the appropriate MSAT distributionfor all Minnesota high schools. MSAT is administeredto virtually every Minnesota high school junior and isa good scholastic aptitude "bench mark" against whichto judge the representativeness of any Minnesota normgroup. After some slight adjustments, the distributionof MSAT means for schools using LTIT at each gradelevel very closely approximates the distribution ofMSAT means for all Minnesota high schools. TheseLTIT norms thus appear to be quite representative ofMinnesota students in general.

30

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forLORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS

Form 1, Level ERevised 1965eased on Fall Administration 1965

SEVENTH GRADEMales and Females Combined

RAW SCORESPer-

centileRank Verbal

Non-Verbal

I 3 +62616059

Total9998979695

"70-71

0968(17

131+128-30126-27124-25122-23

9493929190

(016561..

63

58

57

121120111)118117

8988878685

02

61

60

56

55

116115114113112

8483828180

iio

58

54

53

111..

110109

7978777675

57

56

52

51

108107

106105

7473727170

55

54

5. 0

49

104

i6

6963076665

534. 8

102101

10099

6403626160

52

bl

ii

46

i)!)

ixi

5958575655

50

40

45

9695

9493

5453525150

:43

44

ii)

92

9I

RAW SCORESPer-

centileRank Verbal

Non-Verbal Total

19481746.15

47

. .

46

429089

8887

44434211

10

iii

6io

8685

3938373635

ii

39

38838281

34333231

30

42

41

37

'36

35

807978

77

2928272625

40

io ii

.33

7675747372

2423222120

38

ii

:.36

32:31

30

7170

668

1918171615

:735.

:34

33

i)28

27

6766

64-656362

141312I110

.32

3130

26252423

6160

58-5057

55-5698765

292827

25-26..

21-2220II)1817

53-5452

49-5148

45-47432

1

2422-2319-210-18

1614-1512-13

0-11

43-4430-4235-38

0-34

31

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forLORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS

Form 1, Level ERevised 1965Based on Fall Administration 1965

EIGHTH GRADEMales and Females Combined

RAW SCORES RAW SCORESPer-

centileRank Verbal

Non-Verbal Total

9998979695

79 +*, 1-7875-76

74

06 +6564

(13

140 +138-39130-371:34-35

1:3:3

9493029190

73727170

62

61

00

13213031

129128127

8988878685

69

68

67

59

58

126125124123122

8483828180

66

6557

121120

1197978777675

64

6i

56

55

118117

116. . .

7473727170

62

6154

115

114

1136968676665

60

59

53

52

112111

1106463626100

5851 109

108t07

5958575655

57

56

50

49

106105

1045453525150

55

54

48

47

163

102. . .

Per-centileRank Verbal

Non-Verbal Total

4948474645

53 41.;

101100

99. .

4443424140

52

61

45

44

9897

9695

3938373635

50

49

43

42

94939291

3433323130

48

47

41

40

90898887

2928272625

40

45. .

36. .

86

858483

2423222120

44

4342. .

3736

35

8281807978

1918171615

41

:16

io

3433

3231

777675

73-7472

1413121110

38373615. .

3029282726

70-7169

67-6866

64-6598765

3433

31-323029

2523-24

2220-21

19

62-6359-6157-5854-5651-53

4321

27-2824-2621-23

0-20

1815-1713-140-12

48-5044-4737-430-36

32

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forLORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS

Form 1, Level FRevised 1965Based on Fall Administration 1965

NINTH GRADEMales and Females Combined

RAW SCORES RAW SCORESPer-

centileRank

9998979695

VorbalNon-

Verbal Total76 -1-71-7572-73

7170

61 -1-63

61-62

135 -1-131-31

130128-20

1270493929190

. .

6968

67

59

58

125-26

123-24122121

8988878685

06. .

65

81

57

56

120.. .

119118117

8483828180

(13

82

55

54

116

115114

7978777075

61

oo

1i3

113112

111

7473727170

th

58

th

51

110

icio

108

696867f'.1; 50

107

105

6463626160

56

5549

104

ioa

5958575655

54

102

101

1005453525150

53

52

47

46

99

Pe...-centileRank Verbal

Non-Verbal Total

.1948471645

51

th45

9796

1413121110

49 4464

.93

3938373635

43

4..7

43

42

02

9190

343332

1

30

18

15

41

40

8988

8786

2928272625

44

4:3

io

38

84

832423222120

42

41. . .

37

36

8281

8079

1918171615

4039

38..

35

34. .

78777675

73-741413121110

37

363534

3332

3130

727170

68-6966-67

98765

3331-32

3028-29

292827

25-2623-24

6563-6460-6257-5954-56

4321

2724-2621-230-20

21-2218-2015-170-14

51-5347-5041-46

0-40

33

RAW SCORES FOR SELECTED PERCENTILES

of 10, 25, 50, 75, and 90

Based Upon Minnesota State-Wide Norms (Revised, 1965)

for the

LORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS

Males and Females Combined

SEVENTH GRADE Form 1, Level EPercentile Verbal Nonverbal Total

10 30.0 23.0 56.525 38.5 33.1 72.850 -17.7 -13.(1 90.675 56.2 51.0 105.590 63.1 56.7 117.1

EIGHTH GRADE Form 1, Level EPercentile Verbal Nonverbal Total

10 :35.0 26.5 65.025 4-1.7 37.6 83.850 54.3 47.3 101.775 02.6 55.1) 115.990 69.8 60.2 127.4

NINTH GRADE Form 1, Level F*Percentile Verbal Nonverbal Total

10 34.8 30.4 67.725 42.8 38.2 83.050 51.8 46.1 98.075 60.0 52.7 110.990 67.1 57.5 121.8

*Since Level F is used only at the Ninth grade, direct raw score comparisons cannot bemade with the other two grade levels.

34

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

MALES Grade 8

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rd. Reas. & A N centile

10099

98

97

96

3-5037

35-36

34

32-40

31

. .

45-50

44

43

42

44-1i0

46-48

45

59-118

57-58

56

55

55-100

54

53 .

52

68-90

65-67

63 -64

62

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

32

32

30

29

28

41

..

43-44

42

41

54

53

51

50

49

61

60

59

58

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

31

30

29

40 40

36 52

48

47

46

57

.

56

54-55

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

28

27

27

39

38

38

37

36

51 45 53

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

26

..

25

26

25

37

35

34

50

49

49

ii

52

51

50

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

29

36

48

42

.

99

48

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

23

24

23

32

2;

30

47 41

44

47

.

46

70

69

68

67

66

85

64

63

62

61

22 22

35

29

46

39

45

44

43

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

21

21

2.8

27

45

38 .

42

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

20

34

35

44

4337

41

44

39

55

54

53

52

51

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

(Continued)

MALES Grade 8

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. fleas. Rel. R ea s. & A N centile

5049484746

..

18-19

19

33

..25

4236

.

3850494847411

4544434241 17

1832

24

35

37

30

4544434241

4039383736

17

16

31 23

22

41

40 34 35

4039383736

3534333231

iC30

21

2039 33

34

33

3534333231

3029282726

..15

15

29

28 19

3832

32

.

31

3029282726

2524232221

..14 14

13

27

26 18

37

36

31

30

29

2524232221

20191817

16

13

12

2524232221

1735

30

26

28

27

201918

1716

15

14

13

1211

12

11

11

16

20

14

1817

i6

15

3428

27

2625..

24

1514

13

1211

10987

610

916

15.

0-14

ii13

0-12

33

32

..26252423

23

22.

21

109876

54321

..987

.0-6

80-7

36

3129-30

27 -280-26

2221

18-2012-170-11

io18-19

170-16

54

321

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

FEMALES Grade 8

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Rens. Abil. Reas. Rel. Reas. & A N centile

10099980796

.

37-5031;

35

30-4029

28

45-5043-44

42

47 -0045-40

44..

52-0850-51

49

03-10001-02

01)

58-59

.

04-0002-0:3

1;1

90

10009089796

9594939291

:34

33

32

27

2041

42-4341..

4038-39

4S

474045

5750

55

5058575055

95949392DI

DO

89888786

31

3029

25

40

39

373035

34

4.4

54

53

54

53

9089888789

8584838281

28

27 24

33

32

43

42

52

!ii

5251

56

..

858483S2

81

80

79

78

77

76

26 23 38

31

36 41

40

50

49

48

47

46

45

80

79

78

77

70

7574

73

72

71

25

223.7.

36

29

2839 49

.

44

75

74

737271

70

69

686766

24

23 21

27

26

3848

47

43

70

69686766

65

64

63

62

61

22 20

35

34 25 374. 6;

42

4. i

65

64

63

6261

60

59

58

57

56

21

19-20

33

24

36

45

4060595857

56

55

54

53

52

51

19 32

23

37

44

39

38

.

37

55

54

53

52

51

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)

FEMALES Grade 8

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rd. Reas. & A N cent&

5949484746

4544434241

18

18

31

30

22

..

2'1

21)

35

34

43

42

39

:35

5049484746

17

17 29 34

33

4544

434241

411

39383736

4039383736

3534333231

151619

15

28

19

33

32

41

32

14

27

2618

49 .

3.1

30

3534333231

3029282726

13

11 25

17 31

39

3829

31)

29282726

2524232221

12

24 1630 37

36

28

or

24232221

2019

18

17

16

11

2315

29

28

27

35

. . ,...

27

26

2019

1817

16

15

14

13

1211

10

13

12.

l 1

22..

20-211918

14

..;20

34

33

32

25

24.

1514

13

12

11

10

987

6

9

1017

13-1612

0-11..

12

25

31

3:0

29

232221

2019

10

98

7

6

5

4

32

1

8

7

60-5

80.7

11

0 -10

38

24230-22

2827

24-2616-230-15

18

17

0 -16

54

3

2

1

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)

MALES Grade 9

Per-centile

VerbalRees.

Num.Abil.

AbstractReas.

RAWSCORE

SpaceRd.

Medi.Reas.

CS& A

V+N

Per-centile

IOU

99989796

45-5043-44

4241

35-4034

33

47-5046

45

..57-6053-5651-5249-50

(12-6S60-61

59

. .

58-10056-5754-55

53

. .

77-9074-76

7372

10099989796

9594939291

4039

3S37

3244

43

48

47

5857

56

52

51

70-716968

67

9594939291

9089SS

87S6

36

35

34

31

3042

4645444342

5550

49

66.

656463

9089888786

8584838281

.

33 29 41 41

40

5448

.47

6261

60.

8584838281

8079787776

32

31

2840

36

38

53

52

465958

.

57

8079787776

7574737271

30

2927

39

37

36

45

4:1

56

5554

7574737271

7069686766

2826 38

3551

43 53

7069686766

6564636261

27

26

25

37

34

33

50

42

52

51

6564636261

6059585756

2524

3632

31

49

:11

50

.

49

6059585756

5554535251

..24

23

3536

39

48 iO48

47

46.

5554535251

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

(Continued)

MALES Grade 9

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Rees. Rd. Reas. & A N centile

5049484746

23

2. ;2

29

28

4739

.

45

44

5049484746

4544434241

2221

20

i:1:-)..;

.. 46

38

37

43

.

42

4544434241

4039383736

21

it

633

26

25:6

io

ii

46

4039383736

3534333231

18 -19

6

17

i,..)

ii

24i:t

30

39

38

3534333231

3029282726

i..7 1623

22

:11

34

37.

36

35

3029282726

2524.232221

..16

15.

30

2.9.

28

:6

ii

...

ii

2524232221

2019181710

15

i:t

ii

13

2726

20

6

4140 32

ii

32

ii

30

2019181716

151411

1211

ii

1.2.

ii

2524

22-232120

18

ii

39

ii37

30..

29

29

2827..

1514131211

109876

12

11

6

6

9

1917-18

16

14 -15

16

15

36

3534

28

2726

2625

2423

109876

543

21

..987

0-6

87

0 -60-13

141312

0-11

40

333231

29-300-28

24-2522-2318-219-170-8

21-222019

17-180-16

54321

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

(Continued)

FEMALES Grade 9

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile fleas. Abil. fleas. Rel. fleas. & A N centile

10099989796

..44-5042-43

41

36 -40

353433

47-5046

45

54. -6054-.6852-53.50-51

49

5352

..67-10065-6663-64

62

78 -9075-7773-74

72

10099939796

9594939291

4039..3837

32

31

4443

..

48474645..

51

50

49

61

60

5958

70-7169686766

9594939291

9089888786

.

36.

35

30 42 444342

41

48

47

57

SS

6564636261

9089888786

8584838281

34

33

32.

28

.41

40

SO

38

46

45

55

Si

,

60

8584838281

SO

79787776

31 27

40

36

3736 44 Si

..

5357

56.

8079787776

7574737271

30

29

26 3534

ii

.

43

42

52555

54

757473

7271

.7069686766

ig25

38

32

31

51

53

52

7069686766

6564636261

27

24 i'r

36 41

5051

SO

6564636261

6059585756

26

23 3628

iii

39

49

48

io

.

48

6059585756

5554535251

25

2422

27

26

41

3-i3

47

.

47

40

5554535251

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)

FEMALES Grade 9

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Rens. Ahil. Rests. Rd. Rens. & A N centile

50494847

46

..

23

3525

46 45

44

50494847

46

45

44

43

42

41

22

21

20

34 24

37

36

45

.

43

45

44

43

42

41

4039-

38

37

36

21

33

32

23

22

44

..

42

41

40

39

38

3736

35

34

33

32

31

19-20

18

19 io

21

35

34

43

42

40

3938

..

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

..

17

18

29

28

20

19

41

37

36

35

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

15-16

17

iC 27 18

33

32

iO 34

33

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

14

13

15

14

26

25

17

16

31

38

32

31

30

..

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

..

12

24

22 -23

21

1530

24

37

36

35

29

28

27

..

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

87

6

11

6

13

12

ii

20

19

17-18

16

14-15

14

13

12

28

27

'ii

3.4

22

32

26

25

..

24

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

9

8

7

6

0-5

10

9

8

7

0-6

12-13

11

0-.10

11

10

0-9

42

..

2524

23

0-22

31

30

27-29

21-26

0-20

22-23

21

19-20

17-18

0-16

5

4

3

2

1

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)

MALES Grade 10

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Rens. Rel. Reas. & A N centile

10099989796

46 -50

4543-44

42

. ,

37-4036

35

47-50

46

59-6057-5855-5652-54

64-6862-63

61

60

63-10061-6259-6058

.

82-9080-8178-7977

10099989796

95

94

93

92

91

.,

.,

41

40

..

34

33

45

44

51

50

49

48

..

59

58

57

57

56

55

64

76

74-75

73

7271

95

94

93

9291

908988

8786

39

38

..

43

47

46

5663

52

70

6968

9089

888786

8584838281

37

36

35

32

31

42 4543-44

42

41

55

54

51

.

6766

8584838281

80

79

78

7776

34

30

41

40

3963

50

46

65

.

64

63

80

79

787776

75

7473

72

71

33

32

40

38 52 48

47

62.

61

.

60

757473

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

31

30

28

39

37

36

51

46

59

58

70

69

OS

C,7

66

6564

63

62

61

29

..

27

35

50

45

57

56

55

..

6564

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

28

..

2

38 34

33 49

44

54

53

60

59

58

5756

55

54

53

52

51

27

26

25

37

36

32

31

43

48

43

52

51

.

50

55

54

53

52

51

6

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM I.(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

(Continued)

MALES Grade 10

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mecb. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rel. Rens. & A N centile

5049

48

47

46

25

2.4

3047

42

41

49

48

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

21

23

23 35

29

28

40

.

47

46

4544

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

22'

22

27

46

45

ao45

44

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

21

20

19

34 26

3843 35

34333231

30

29

28

27

26 18-19

ia33

25

24

44

43

37

30

42

41

.

40

39

30

29

28

27

26

2524

23

22

21

..

17

17

16

32

31

23

22

42

35

38

37

25

24

23

22

21

2019

1817

16

16 3021

2041

3436

.

35

34

20

19

18

1716

151413

12

11

..15

1.4

152S

26-27

19

18

4033

32

31

3332

31

1514

13

1211

10

9

8

7

6

13

12

..

14

13

12

11

25

24

22-23

21

20

17

15116

14

39

38

37

36

..

36

2928

30

29

28

27

10

98

7

6

5

4

32

1

11

10

9

8

0-7

10

9

6-8

18-19

0-17

13

0-12

35

..

34

31-33

0-30

27

26

23-25

13-22

0-12

26

24-25

22-23

20-21

0-19

5

4

3

2

1

44

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

(Continued)

FEMALES Grade 10

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Fleas. Abil. Fleas. Rd. Rens. Et A N centile

10099989796

..46-50

454443

-4036..3534

..47-50

95

53-G051-52

50..

56-6854-55

53

..72-10068-71

6766

80-9078-79

7770

10099989790

9594939291

4241

4639

33

3245

9.4

4948

46-474544

52

51

656463

62

73-7571-72

7069GS

9594939291

9089888786

383736

35

31

ia43

..

42-43

40-41

36

50

40.

48

61

60

66-6765646362

9089888786

8584838281

.

34

3.3

29

28

42 38

37.

36

59

58

61.

60

8584838281

8079787776

32

.

31 2741

35

3'4

33

4746

45

57

56

59

58.

57

8079787776

7574737271

..30

26

40

io

32

.49

55

54

5655

.

54

7574737271

7069686766

29

28

2531

3043

5353

7069686766

6564636261

27 3829

92

52

52

6564636261

6059585756

26

24

..

37

28

27 41

46

51

50

46

6059585756

5554535251

25

23 36 26

46

io

51 48

.17

46

5554535251

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)

FE ALES Grade 10

RAWSCORE

Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rd. Reas. & A N centile

5049484746

24

23

22

.35

45

24 .

50.

45

44

5049484746

4544434241

22 21

34

33

3849

4843

4544434241

4039383736

..21

20 32

23

22

3747

.

42

.

41

4039383736

3534333231

19-2031

36

2136 46

45

40

39

3534333231

3029282726

1819

29

28

2035

34 44

.

38.

3736

3029282726

2524232221

17

15 -16

IS

17

27

19

18

33

43

.

35

34

2524232221

2019181716

14

16

15

26252423

17

32

31

42

.41

40

33

32

2019181716

1514

131211

13

1214

13

22

20 -21

16

3636

38

313029

1514131211

10987

6

11

10..

12

11

19

17 -1815-1613-14

15

1429..

37

363534

28272625

109876

54321

9..87

0-6

169

0-8

0-12 1312110-10

28

27260-25

3332

30-3127-29

0-26

2421-2319-20

180-17

54321

46

Raw Scores for Selected Percentiles for

DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L

(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)

Per-centile

VerbalReas.

Num.Abil.

AbstractRees.

SpaceRel.

Mech.Reas.

CS& A

V

& NPer-

centile

GRADE 8 MALES-RAW SCORES10 10.8 9.7 16.5 14.3 33.2 26.5 23.0 1025 14.2 14.3 27.0 18.6 37.0 31.3 30.7 2550 19.0 19.0 33.3 25.3 42.8 36.5 38.3 5075 24.8 24.8 36.3 33.7 48.0 42.3 49.3 7590 31.0 27.9 40.0 40.0 52.7 18.0 57.0 90

GRADE 8 FEMALES-RAW SCORES10 9.4 10.5 17.0 12.7 25.8 31.5 23.0 1025 12.5 13.9 24.7 16.3 30.2 37.3 28.4 2550 18.0 18.3 31.0 22.4 35.0 43.6 36.3 5075 25.0 22.4 37.3 29.0 39.8 49.6 44.7 7590 31.5 25.3 40.8 37.0 44.5 54.0 54.0 90

GRADE 9 MALES-RAW SCORES10 12.0 10.5 19.0 16.0 36.0 28.5 26.0 1025 16.3 15.5 30.0 21.7 42.3 33.5 34.5 2550 23.2 22.5 34.9 29.0 47.3 39.2 45.5 5075 30.0 27.5 39.4 37.5 51.9 45.0 56.0 7590 36.0 31.0 42.3 46.0 55.5 50.3 66.5 90

GRADE 9 FEMALES-RAW SCORES10 11.3 13.0 20.0 14.0 28.5 34.5 26.0 1025 10.4 17.3 27.8 18.6 33.0 40.3 34.3 2550 23.8 21.8 35.2 25.8 37.8 46.3 45.5 5075 30.0 26.0 38.9 35.0 43.3 52.0 55.5 7590 36.5 30.0 42.0 44.0 48.0 57.5 65.0 90

GRADE 10 MALES-RAW SCORES10 13.0 14.0 25.0 17.0 39.0 30.5 30.0 1025 18.3 17.3 32.7 23.0 42.8 35.8 38.5 2550 25.5 24.5 35.9 30.7 47.5 42.0 49.8 5075 33.3 29.7 40.7 38.3 52.3 48.5 62.0 7590 39.0 32.8 43.3 47.5 56.0 53.5 70.0 90

GRADE 1D FEMALES-RAW SCORES10 11.0 12.0 19.0 15.2 29.6 37.0 28.0 1025 17.0 18.3 27.8 19.0 33.6 43.5 35.5 2550 24.0 22.0 35.4 25.0 38.8 50.2 45.5 5075 30.3 26.5 40.0 32.5 4.1.8 55.3 . 56.0 7590 38.0 31.0 43.5 42.5 50.0 61.5 66.5 90

47

Minnesota State-Wide Norms

for

IOWA TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS

Males and Females Combined

1969

The Minnesota norms for ITBS are based uponscores of students who took the battery in Fall, 1969.

N (Schools) N (Students )

Grade 7 34 3,432

Grade 7 24 1,690

Not all schools which administered ITBS in Fall of1969 are included. A few were eliminated so that thefinal norm group represents a good cross-section of theState in terms of school size and geographical location.

Additional adjustments were made so that the dis-tribution of Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test(MSAT) scores in the schools making up the normgroup closely approximate the distribution of MSATscc.fies for the entire Minnesota population.

49

Min

neso

ta S

tate

-Wid

e N

orm

s fo

rIO

WA

TE

ST

S O

F B

AS

IC S

KIL

LSG

rade

7G

RA

DE

EQ

UIV

ALE

NT

Per.

cent

ileV

oc.

RD

GSp

el.

Lan

guag

eC

ap,

Punc

.U

sg.

Tot

.M

aps

Wor

k St

udy

Skill

sG

raph

sR

ef.

Tot

.A

rith

met

ic S

kills

Con

.Pr

ob.

Tot

.C

omp.

Per-

cent

ile

99 98 97 96 95

98-1

0996

-97

94-9

593

91-9

2

98-1

1395

-97

92-9

490

-91

..

100-

109

9997

-98

95-9

693

-94

103-

111

102

100-

.101

99-1

0693 97 96 .

.

97-1

0696 95 .

.

93-9

4

97-1

0195

-96

94 93 92

99-1

0897

-98

9694

-95

92-9

3

103-

110

100-

102

99 9S

100-

106

9S-9

995

-97

94 93

97-1

0595

-96

93-9

492 91

98-1

0896

-97

94-9

592

-93

91

93-1

0391

-92

9088

-89

86-8

7

93-1

0591

-92

89-9

088 87

93-1

0192

90-9

189 88

99 9S 97 96 95

94 93 92 91 90

90 89 88 8785

-86

8987

-88

.. 86 85

92

90-9

1

89

98-9

9

96-9

7

94

-95

95 94 93 92.

..

-92

91 -

92

9. 0 .

.

91 90 89 88

..

90-9

1

87-8

9

96-9

7

93-9

592

92 91 6:90

90 89 88".

87

90 88-8

9Si 8.

6

85 .

83-3

4

81:3

2

86 85 84 83 82

Si 86 85 84

94 93 92 91 90

89 88 87 86 85

84 83 82.

81

. 84

82 -83

81

87-8

886 ..

.

92-9

3

91

..

91 90 89.

88-8

9

3. 7 ..

87 86 35

85:8

6..

83-8

.4

91.

89-9

0.

S8

88 Si 86

. 86 85 84

84-8

5

3,3

8. 2

.

..

78-8

0

Si 8. 0

..

79

83 82 81

89 88 Si 56 S5

84 83 82 81 80

.. 7. 9

.

80 79 78

83-3

4

81.-

32

90 8. 9

.

8. 8

.

88 87

85:8

.6

85-8

6.

.

83-8

-4

84 83 . S2

..

81-8

2

..

85-3

7

S.5.

84.

83

8.3.

S2 gi

81 30

75-7

7

78 77

80 7... ..

7S

84 83 82 81 SO

79 78 77 76 75

77 -78

7...

77 7...

..

79-3

0

..

87

8556

83-8

4_

81-8

2

..

81:3

2

81 80 7. 9

.

79:3

0.

.

..

..

82-8

4

8... 8.... SO 7. 9

.

79 7873

-74

76 ..

75 ..

74

77 76

79 78 77 76 75

.1. en CI - CD1, 1 1, 1, 1-- CD 00 CO CO V:CC CO CO CO CC

..1. CD CI - 0cD CO CD VD COD

CC/ 00 1`.. CC LC3LC3 LC3 LC3 LC3 Le)

..1. C0 CI ... cz.LC3 LC3 V', LC3 LC3

01 00 1... c,c, an.1. .1. .1. .1. .1.

LC3 . ..1. VPt . C... Is ..--.. ...

C..

I.-

I-.. 1...

D CD

C1

,....I-

I .. COCC CC

LC3 ..1.CD <C,

C0

CACD

CI

CI)CO

C0 ClCO CO

CO ,o ...rCM . CO CO

. 0 a> coCO I-. t-

r'?CDI--

CO

CD

tv.. c...

GO

lLID

...",I--

, 1,.. 1-..

CI

vi..

1--

M

0 CC 00I-- CO CD

.-.

CD

1:-.

,--

..

C/ C-

00 ChCC CD

0D 1,. c0tv- tv. t-

000C..L.

C0vs oi -oo c.,.., oo

oo

ootr tot.... I-.I-..

1C3 11". 1.-

COC..

op .

cnt-

.)4Iv-

M CI1". t-

CO

-C.I--

..

co -rt-r .0 - t-rco t- not-- t--

..-. 0 CD1,-. C.. CD

C..

....I--

-.. oq t-r

r-- cot-

Cf, 1,- COCO CO CO

0COCO

C7ICO

t--- to .to to

titD

C23

co

co co

,.t,Lo . to .47

an .1. C.,V". t".. t.... CD GO

. 0t-v l- CO CO

'etc 0D CNI .--. 0r t V. t`. t 01 00 tv- tO LC3CO CO CO CO UP

.14 1 0 C4 .-. 0UP CO CO CO CO

0. 00 tv. UP cC3LC3 LC3 LC3 14.) LC3

Dc C0 CvI .-1 CILC3 L0 LC3 It" It"

er> 00 tv.. CO Lc3.1. .1. 14 ..:r "t

51

Min

neso

ta S

tate

-Wid

e N

orm

s fo

rIO

WA

TE

ST

S O

F B

AS

IC S

KIL

LS(C

ontin

ued)

Gra

de 7

GR

AD

E E

QU

IVA

LEN

T

Per-

cent

ileV

oc.

RD

GSp

el.

Lan

guag

eC

ap.

Punc

.U

st.

Tot

.M

aps

Wor

k St

udy

Skill

sG

raph

sR

ef.

Tot

.A

rith

met

ic S

kills

Con

.Pr

ob.

Tot

.C

omp.

Per-

cent

ile

44 43 42 41 40

... 64

62 61 ..

61-6

234

62-6

3

64-6

5 ....

61 -

63

63 62 61

.. 6566 -68

.

64

.. 65 64

63 62 ..

58-6

0

61 60

63 62

44 43 42 41 40

39 38 37 36 35

..62

-63

61

60 .. 59 ..

59-6

0

57-5

8

.

59-6

1

.

57-5

8

61-6

3

58-6

0..

..

58 -

60

60 59 58

..63

-64 .. .

60-6

263 -65

63 6,..)

.

..

63 62 61

61

59 -

60..

59 58 ..

61 .. 60

39 38 37 36 35

34 33 32 31 30

60 59

58 57.

56 ..

..

55

-56

56 55 54

.

55-5

7

.. -57

54 -57

.. ..

57 56 .. 55

.. 59 .... ..

61

59-6

0

60 .. .. 59

..

57:5

8

..

54-5

7..

57 56

59 5S ..

34 33 32 31 30

29 28 27 26 25

.. .

57 -

58

55 54 53 ..

52 -

54

50 -

51

53

51 :5

2

.

52-5

4 ..

52-5

3

..

49-5

1

54 53 52 ..

-58

57 -

58 .. ..

60-6

2

..

56-5

9

57-5

8

56 ..

58 57 .. 56

55 -56

..

55 54 53

57 .. 56 .. 55

29 28 27 26 25

24 23 22 21 20

..55

-56

52 51 50

48-4

947

49-5

0

48

48-5

1.. ..

45-4

7

.. ..

47-4

846

51 50 49.

48

..54

-56

53

.. ..

54 -55

54 -55

52-5

3

55 54 53

53-6.

550

-53 .. ..

52.

51

.. 54 53

24 23 22 21 20

IZEI'

9E-I Z

s1-9Eli1'-6EIt

E-i;

9E-9£

SE-L

E01-6E

6Z-IZ

I E-0£

ZE

5E-'E

E

EE

-ZZ

5E-'E

SE-9E

O-6t

E-Z

ZL

E-9£

6E-SE

I EIJI-

67,-EZ

JE-D

EZ

E

9E-E

E

SZ-Z

Z,

ZE

-1;27

LE

-EE

67,-0ZC

lg

EE

-1E9E

-E

LZ

-2. I

611-SZ

I E-O

E

EE

-ZE

EZ

-SIc7 -11IZ

-9Z

61-91I1-07,6Z

-ZZ

LZ

-SZ

ZZ

-9 I1Z

-EZ

LZ

-9Z0E

-SZ

1Z-91

I Z-Z

Zsz-cg

6Z

6Z-8I

1£-0EFE

-EE

9E-9E

LZ

-ZZ

I E-SZ

EE

-ZE

9E-9E

IZEI'

c9- IS6

Z1-

Et.

1-1-

Si-

91'

It7,1.

If-EP

....0t-9£

ItE

E-7,1-

11

ZEEt

EP

Si'91-

LE

-9E6E

-SE

OE

..Z

6 -SE

L -E

SE-L

E01-6E

'

Et-I ttt

tE9EL

E-9E

SE65

OE

-Sr,

EE

-I£

oc-sr

1-E-I 5

L'E

lEE

E

SE-l- E

9ESE

-LE

EE

-OE

tE

9E-95

LE

8E-L

E0E

-6EIt7,6

8E-L

E01-6EZ

t-11'E

t.9-PE

S92.86

OI

IIZ I

El

11

LI'

St61

91.

9ELt

..11.-IP

.

51-

Lt 9F

09-SP

..LE

SI-61-

Z t- I tE

tII

96 51

. .....IS-SI.

..

LE

-9E

..SI'

OIt7,E

Si-I1-

95-E

LE

0E -SE

!.E-9E

..SE.

11--65

6EIt-O

P..

Et' -'L

E.

6E-SE

OkII-

2,"E

Et

ti'9691

L1 --91,

SE09-6E

OI

IIZ I

El

EI

9191LI

SI61

05ISZ5

St6E09..

.

6E-9E

ZS -I9

09I5Z9

Lt

61-SE

19-09

...

E9-Z

9

..

09-61

Z9-I9

.

51-

91.

LI'

ItE

t-73.

9-11.

..Et-Z

E......

tt969ELt

Et

II9696

LI.

81'66

Z5-1S

. .

1'S-ES

9191LI

SI61

Min

neso

ta S

tate

-Wid

e N

orm

s fo

rIO

WA

TE

ST

S O

F B

AS

IC S

KIL

LS

(Con

tinue

d)

Gra

de 8

GR

AD

E E

QU

IVA

LEN

T

Per-

cent

ileG

raph

sW

ork

Stud

y Sk

ills

Ref

er.

Tot

alC

once

pts

Ari

thm

etic

Ski

llsPr

oble

ms

Tot

alC

ompo

site

Per

cent

ile

99 98 97 96 95

116-

119

.113

-115

109 -112

111-

117

108-

110

106-

107

104 -105

109-

115

107-

10S

105-

106

104

103

110-

117

107-

109

106

104-

105

102-

113

100-

101

98-9

9

96-9

7

103-

112

102

100-

101

99 98

103-

113

102

100-

101

99 98

99 OS

97 96 95

94 93 92 91 90

104-

108

..

102-1

03

100-

101

102

101

100

103

102

101

100

95

93

-94

92

97 96 95 94

97 96 95 ..

94 93 92 91 90

89 88 87 86 85

196:

103

..

98

-99

97

99 98 97 96

98-9

. 9

96-9

7

90-9

1

89 88

93 92 61 90

94 93 92 91

89 88 87 86 85

84 83 82 81 80

97-9

9

-95

. .96

95 -96

..

65 94 9.3

95

93 -94

..

86-8

7

85

S9 88

90 S9

84 83 82 81 80

ad x r- )a dr)I- t-- 1.-- I- I-dr cd:, at -0t-- I- I.- I-. I- CI0 00 I t., ,n

to to to to to..,. ,..1, ,.., -.,o to to to to

c, L., ,.... ..., ,,OD 140 E.D U.: I0

-,. ,., c., _ =V) ,,o ,r) m I0

00 I.- 4.000 00 00

.n C7 CIC.I., CO

CO 'ID I- ID

00 00 00

.,a . - cr,0,zo4, cr,

CO

01

.

co

oo r--

-

......

to 2

=0t

COr-oo1-

....,--0 co.,

I.- 'J001,-1 I-

t-

I,

c,

in ?,t. t

-rr-co1-

oo

-

el, ...Co CO

,,ad

ytCO

C, C '/:,CO 00

I:,C.'ad00

CO

CO

1..-cdo . 0?

00

CO, CO

.t--00

. 10 1. ,V) 00

-ri 0?

00

00

CI -CC 00

Cl --X X 0 adX I--

CO.000 I-

co co r- to .nt-- r- t-- I- r-- -r co csi -.OI-- t-- l' t-- t v, 00 r- co ,co= tO tO C, :0-r co or - coCOO CO ,.. CO

co> oo t-- co Lto'> '> 17 tr) 11

.r. co ol -. co11 11 If; in 11

55

Min

neso

ta S

tate

-Wid

e N

orm

s fo

rIO

WA

TE

ST

S O

F B

AS

IC S

KIL

LS

(Con

tinue

d)

Gra

de 8

GR

AD

E E

QU

IVA

LEN

T

Per-

cent

ileG

raph

sW

ork

Stud

y Sk

ills

Ref

er.

Tot

alC

once

pts

Ari

thm

etic

Ski

llsPr

oble

ms

Tot

alC

ompo

site

Per

cent

ile

49 48 47 46 45

.. ..

77 -

78

78 ii 76 6

78 77

75-7

6

73-7

4

. . ..

73 .. 72

75 74 ....

....

49 48 47 46 45

44 43 42 41 40

. .

75-7

6

.: I 5

73-7

4

i6 75

72 71

.70

..

..

70-7

1

71 70.. 72 .

.

44 43 42 41

39 38 37 36 35

ii

72;7

3

..

72 . .

74 73 72

69

6i-.

68

..

63-6

9

. .

69 68 67

71 .: 10 69

39 33 37 36 35

34 33 32 31 30

.. .. .. .. . .

71

66:7

0

71.

70

. . .. ..

65

-66

66-67

. . ..

65

..

. . 68 67

34 33 32 31 30

IgFt

Z[-LZ

fir -E6

96-Ct

St-LP

Ot-IF.

Et-lt

S6-b6

L6-96

EF.-SG

9E-6t

LE

It-1g

E-gt

9f-66

6E-Ig

Z6-Ot

i-Et

CP

..

E-4g

It -CE

Et-ZP

0£-ZZ

8E-IE

6£

E5 -O6

IZEI,

C91_S6

6t-IS-OS

ZS

EC

.

tS

St

6OS19

7,C

It-SE

9P-ZP

Lt

09-L6

-.

4g-IS

L'-9t6t -St

OS1g

ES-ZS

""

96 -66

81'-4t

0S4.,4

SP-ft

-

81-9,

..

ZS-fit

S9L86

01

II

gl

El

ti

SS9S

LS

89

-fiC

ES

tgcc

9g.

"

IS-St

--

ZS

Eg

gg-tg

99

{.c

gg

9S

LS

8S

"

ZS-IS

SS-ES

--

ES

..

SS1S

..

Of

II

Z1

EI

tI

91

91

LI

SI

61

--

0919

4gSC

6C

..

gg-ES

LS 9S

LC

SS

fig

6S

0919

g9

4S-9C

6S-89

"

.

g9-6s...-

..

CI

91

LI

81

61

OZ

Ig

gg

Eg

tg

7,9

E9

69

09-.

19

..

-'

09-89

0919

..

E9

t9

S9

19-09

£9-Z9

S919

£9

..

L9-$9

OZ

1g

Zg

EZtg

gg

9g

Li,

Sg

fig

99..

99

g9

£9

69

g9-19

-.

..

99-£9

Z9

t9-£9

99

19

8969

"

49-99

89

....

IL-89

SZ

9Z

LZ8Z6g

Min

neso

ta S

tate

-Wid

e N

orm

s fo

rIO

WA

TE

ST

S O

F B

AS

IC S

KIL

LS(C

ontin

ued)

Gra

de 8

GR

AD

E E

QU

IVA

LEN

T

Per-

cent

ileV

ocab

.R

DG

Spel

l.C

apita

l

Lnn

duad

e

Punc

t.U

sage

Tot

alM

aps

Per-

cent

ile

99 98 97 96 95

108-

116

105-

107

102-

104

100

-101

107-

116

105-

106

103-

104

102

..

111-

120

110

108-

109

106-

107

105

114-

120

113

112

111

110

111-

118

109-

110

108

107

108-

115

107

105-

106

..

103-

104

108-

113

106-

107

105

104

112-

117

I 1 1

109-

110

103

106-

107

99 98 97 96 95

94 93 92 91 90

..

98 -

99

96-9

7

101

99-1

0098 97

104

103

102

100-

101

99

109

i;;7,

-1 0

8

..

106

105

104

103

102

100

-101

..

102-

103

101

100

69

105

104

103

102

94 93 92 91 90

89 88 87 86 85

94

-.95

93 92 91

96 95 94 93

98 97 96 95

105-

106

103-

104

102

101

100

99

.

..

97-9

9.. ..

98 97 96 95

101

99 -

1C ,.

89 SS

87 86 85

84 83 82 SI

SO

90.

88 -

89

87

92 91 66

..

64

..10

1-10

2

160

98 97 96

93-9

6.. ..

94 93 9296

-98

84 33 82 81 so

0919Z

S291-9

TS

38

9LIL

9L-11.

a

3L LL

1S-6/.

..OS

Z8-13

..

8L-L

L

9/.

9/.

LL

SL

0919Z

9E

S

1-9

9S99L

98969

1S -ES

98-98

8/.

U.

0818-SL

..

1-8-38

ES

98-1-S08-6L

LL81.

6!

6/.

OS

9999L9

8969

09193929t9

SS L3

..18

68..2.8

..

98-68

....

9S-98

98

68-LS

..

18

28-680818

..IS38

091969£91-9

9999L

98969

.1-8

98

....

..

SS .836-06

..9818

68E8

28

99991.9

8969

01.

ILEL

£Lt!.

06-63

16

98..LS

88

SS-9816-68

1-6-96.96

LS-98

68-88

1-8

9898

1-8

98

CIL

ILZL

84tL

949?r r.

816L

26-36

.

96-1-6

680616

68

36-06

E6-66

26-1.6

..L

6-96.

66-86

16-06

26-36

1.8SS68

98' '

92,

9LLL

8/.61.

Min

neso

ta S

tate

-Wid

e N

orm

sfo

rIO

WA

TE

ST

S O

F B

AS

IC S

KIL

LS

(Con

tinue

d)

Gra

de 8

GR

AD

E E

QU

IVA

LEN

T

Per-

cent

ileV

ocab

.R

I)G

Spel

l.-

Cap

ital

Lan

guag

e

Punc

t.U

sage

Tot

alM

aps

Per-

cent

ile

49 48 47 46 45

76 75

74 ..

73

75-7

6

73-7

4

78-7

9

75 -

77

74-7

673 .

.

75 74 73

SO 79

49 48 47 46 45

44 43 42 41 40

.. 74 .. 73

72

70-7

1

..

71

-72

..

72-7

4

.

71-7

3

70

.. -...

69-'2 ..

727 71 70

77-7

844 43 42 41 40

39 38 37 36 35

.. .. ..

71-7

2..

69 .. 68 ..

69-7

0

66-6

8

70-7

1

C.,- 67

68-6

9

6765 -68

: -68

..

69 68 67

75 74 ..

39 38 37 36 35

34 33 32 31 30

..

69

-70

..

67 66 ..

.. .

64-6

5

..

65 -66

64

65-6

6

64

.. ..

61 -

64

66 65 64

71 -73

34 33 32 31 30

9601I IZI

1-1

SI91L

ISI6iO

Z1gggE

Z

1-gg9Z8Z

EE

-Lg

9E-PE

01.-1.E

3P-I1-

6P-9P

CS-09

2.9-P9

09-89

1-9-19

L9-29

02[89

FE-9.11

9g-9E8E

-L1:

OP-6E

ZP-IP

1- I-

P1-

LP-91,

81-

61-

09119.

ES

I-93995Sc LC

0919Z9

E9

SE-9E

ZP-62

LP-E

P

I9-8P

Z9

94

09-L9

92-928E

-LE

EP -Z

1-

SP-9P

09-6P

Z9-I9

P9-E9

94-99

89-L9

09-69

19

29-7.9

LE

-2gO

P-82

2P-It

91-11.

61-LP

IS-04

cc

9.9-Pc'99

84-L9

!. Z-61

SE-8g

92

6E-L

EZ

P-OP

9P-gtL

P-9P

6P-8P

0914

Z5

ES

P4cc1.9-94

69-89

19-5919-09

E9-Z

92919

9E-821

6E-9E

01E

P-IP

6P-81,04L

9Sc

09-64

19

Z9

E9P9

49

PE-E

Z92-926E

-LE

ZP-01-

19-09114

49-24

L4-99

89

09-69.

es-19

29

49-P9

L9-99

89

9S601IIg 1

ETI91LI

8161OZ

IgZZ

EZ

9ZLZ

SZ6Z

Gra

de E

quiv

alen

ts fo

r S

elec

ted

Per

cent

iles

for

the

IOW

A T

ES

TS

OF

BA

SIC

SK

ILLS

Bas

ed o

n M

inne

sota

Sta

te-W

ide

Nor

ms

(197

0)

Mal

es a

nd F

emal

es C

ombi

ned

Gra

de 7

Perc

entil

eG

rade

8Pe

rcen

tile

1026

6075

9010

2660

7590

Voc

abul

ary

46.0

57.0

67.0

76.0

85.0

54.0

66.0

76.5

85.7

96.0

Rea

ding

43.0

52.5

65.0

75.5

85.0

51.0

62.7

75.0

86.5

96.5

Spel

ling.

.. ...

... .

......

.38

.050

.065

.377

.789

.047

.060

.075

.589

.599

.0C

apita

lizat

ion

39.0

49.7

67.5

84.5

94.0

44.0

59.0

78.7

95.5

105.

7Pu

nctu

atio

n35

.049

.066

.881

.092

.042

.059

.076

.392

.010

3.0

Lan

guag

e U

sage

34.0

49.0

66.3

80.3

89.0

43.0

56.7

74.0

89.0

99.3

Lan

guag

e T

otal

40.0

51.5

66.0

78.5

87.5

48.0

60.0

75.5

89.0

99.0

Map

s44

.555

.268

.477

.890

.051

.065

.680

.592

.010

2.0

Gra

phs

44.0

56.0

68.6

81.5

91.5

51.0

64.8

79.0

92.0

102.

4R

efer

ence

s41

.555

.368

.080

.788

.550

.065

.378

.991

.799

.3W

k. S

tudy

Ski

lls T

otal

....

46.5

56.0

68.0

79.0

87.0

54.0

66.0

79.0

90.5

99.5

Ari

th. C

once

pts

45.0

54.5

66.5

77.3

86.0

53.0

62.0

75.5

89.0

100.

0A

rith

. Pro

blem

s39

.851

.061

.871

.881

.047

.561

.073

.082

.591

.0A

rith

. Tot

rl,

45.0

53.0

63.3

74.0

82.0

53.0

62.0

73.5

85.0

94.0

Com

posi

te...

.47

.055

.065

.375

.583

.455

.065

.075

.386

.094

.5

Minnesota State-Wide Norms

for

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TESTS,AD LANCED BATTERY

Males and Females Combined

The Minnesota norms for SAT( AB) are basedupon scores of students who took the battery in Fall,1969.

N ( Schools ) N (Students)

Grade 7 8 1,224

Grade 8 22 3,488

Schools included in the norm group were chosento be as representative of the State as posiO)le in termsof size and geographical location.

The distribution of Minnesota Scholastic AptitudeTest (MSAT) scores for the students from the normgroup schools is almost identical to the MSAT distri-bution for all Minnesota Juniors indicating that theSAT norm group is probably quite representative ofthe entire Minnesota student population.

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY

Forms W, X

Grade 7

GRADE EQUIVALENT

Per- Para.centile Mean.

99 116-12798 113-11597 11296 110-11195 108-109

Spell.

120-127118-119116-117

115113-114

Lanj.

.111 -119100-110

108107106

Arith.Comp.

92-11589-9186.83

.

84-85

Arith.Conc.

118-129116-117114-115111-113107-110

Arith.App1.

116-129113-115111-112

108-110

Soc.Stud.

115.129114

112-113111

Sci.

117-129116

114-115112-113110-Ill

Per-milk

9998979695

9493929190

107

106105

111-112108-110

. .

106-107

105104

103102

..82-83

80-31

105-106

10391-102

104-'107108-110

167106

103-105

108-109

106-107..

9193929190

8988378685

.

104

102-103100-101

104-105

102-103

99-101

101

100

9998

78-79

76-7796:98

92-65

98-103

91 -97

102

100-.101

96-99

104-105

102 -103

89q8

8.;86

85

8483828180

99

96-9894-9592-93

96 -68

93 -95

96-9793-95

86

72-75

I:8.-71

88 -91

86-3792-65

100-101

98 -99

8483828180

7978777675

..90-91

89

86-88

90-9. 2

88-89

88

86-87 66 -67

85

82 -84..

85-90 89-91

87-88

86

96 -67

92-95

7n78777975

7473727170

..84-85 86-87 84.

85

82-8364.65

80-81

..

82-3484 -85

82-83

90-9187-S9

85.-8. 6

74737271

70

6968676665

82-83

80-81

84-85

82 -8380.-81

79 62-63 .

80-81

..

.

83-84..

6968676665

6463626160

78-79

77

80-81

76

78

77

.. 78-79 79-81 79

78

77

.

80-82.

77-79

64636261

60

5958575655

76

74-75

78

76

75

74

60 -61

76-77 76 -78

. .

76

72 -75

76

.

75

5958575655

5453525150

72-73

76-77

7i-75

73

58-5974 -75

72-74

69 -71

5453525I50

64

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY

Forms W, X

Grade 7(Continued)

GRADE EQUIVALENT

Per- Para.centile Mean.

49 70-7148474645 68 -69

Spell.

72-73

Land.

71

Arith.Comp.

Arilh.Conc.

72 -73

Arilh.Appl.

Soc.Stud.

71

70

Sci.

67-68

Per-centile

4948474645

44434241

40

66-6770 -71

69

66-67

56-57

09 -7172 -73

69

68 65 -66

4443424140

3938373635

..65

ai

68-69

67

65 67

66

63-64

3938373035

3433323130

..63..62

06

64 -65

63

626160

54-556-6

6:71 64-6562

34333231

302928272625

..60-61 62-63

,.5958

57 51 -536-1-65

63-66

63

62

61

60-61

.

58 -59

2928272625

2423222120

58-59

.,56-57

59-6156

5554

63

6

6

6

.

56-57

2423222120

1918171615

54-55

..53

57 -5853

5251..

43-50

60-61

60-62

58 -5958

56-57

55.

54.

52-53

1918171615

14131211

10

5250-51

..48-49

54-56

51-53

5049

.47

!4,-.47

57-59

5754-55

53

52

50 -51.

46 -49

1413.1211

109876

5

.

46-47. ,

44-4542-43

48-50

46-.4744-45

..45-46

4442-43

41

42-44

36-.4154-56

51 -53

53-50

49-52

50-51

4648

47

ie..

987

65

4321

40.41..

35-3923.34

41-4338-4034-3720-33

4038-3933-3720-32

36.-3833-3522-32

48-5044-4724-43

44 -4840-4336-39

46-4743-4439-4232-38

44-4542-..d40-4129-39

4321

65

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forSTANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY

Forms W, X

Grade 8

GRADE EQUIVALENT

Per- Para.centile Mean.

99 123-12998 121-12297 12096 118-11995 ..

Spell,

126-129125124123122

Land.

120-129118-119116-117

115114

Arith.Comp.

121-129119-120117-118115-116112-111

Arial.Canc.

127-129126

124-125

122-123

Arith.App!,

125-129123-124

121-122

Soc.Stud.

12.1-129122-123

121

120119

Sci.

122-129121

119-120

118

Per-centile

9998979695

91939291

90

116-117

114-115113

120-121

119118

112-1131 1 1

110109

108-111104-107

100-103

120-121

118 -119

119-120

116-118

115

118117

115-116

117116

114-115

94939291

908988878685

112

110-111

117

110115

108107106

105

90-99

92-95

116-117

114-11.5

113-114

111-112

114

113

112

112-113

110-111

898887

8(1

8584S3

8281

80

108-109

107106'

113-114

111-112

108-110

104103102

. .

89-91 111-113108 -110

111

110

108 -1(19

106:107

84838281

807978777675

1-05

104

100-.107

104 -105

101

..100-

99

86-88

84 -85

107-110

105 -106

103-.104 101 -107

108-109107

106

104-105

102.'103

7978777675

74

737271

70

102.-.103

.

100-.101102 -103

98

96 -97

93-95 82 -83

90 -102

104 -105

102-103

100:10174737271

706968'57

6665

9996-9394-95

. .

92-93

99-101

96-98

90-92

8988

80-81

96.-9. 8

98-103100 -101

96.-99

98-99

.

96-97

6968676665

64636261

60

90-91.

8993-95

90-92

86-87

8584

78-.79

92-95

8-.91

91 -97 92-95

89-91

92 -95

90 -91

646362(11

60

5958575655

86-88

..84-85

8-.89

86-87

82-83

80 -81

76 -77 86-87

858-'90

87-88

86

. .

87-89

.

85 -86

5958575655

54

53525150

..82-83

..80-81

84 -85

79

7877

72-75

82-84

84-85

82-83

.

83-84

54

53525150

66

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY

Forms W, X

Grade(Continued)

GRADE EQUIVALENT

Per- Para.centile Mean.

494S 78-79474645 77

Spell.

82-83

SO:8 i.

Land.

76

ii74

Arith.Comp.

68-71

Arith.Conc.

sii:81

Arith.Appl.

82-84

Soc.Stud.

80-81

o78

Sci.

80-S2

..77-79

Per-cenlile

4948474645

4443424140

76io

7S

73

72

6G-67

78-.7979 -81

77

76

..7675

44434241

40

3938373635

74-75

..72-73

76-77

74-75

7170

69

..

64-65

76-77

76-7874-75

72-73

.

72-74

69-.71

3938373635

3433323130

70-71

68-69

72-73

70 -71

6866-67

66

62-63

74-7574-75

71

7i)

(i6

67 -08

3433323130

2928272625

66.-07

65.

68.-69

67

64

63

6.2.

60-61

58 -59

72-73

69 -71

72-7368

67

65.-96

63.-64

2028272625

2423222120

..64

63

6.6

6-95

60.-615958 50 -57 66.-68

67-71

..66

64 -6563

62..

60-61

24232221

20

19

18

1716

15

6.2.

60 -61

..

62.-93

5756

55

5454-55

6.-.65

6363-66

..6261

60

...

58 -59

50-57

5554

52-53

.

50-5148-49

4746

19

'81716

IS

14

13

12

11

10

9S

7

0

5

141312II10

58-59..

56-5754-55

..

59-61

57 -58

54-56

535251

49-5048

51.-6362

60 -61

60 -62

58 -59

..

5958

.56-5754-55

5352

50-5149

987

65

5352

50.-5. 1

48-49

51 -53

48.-60..

4746

4342

48-50

45.-47..

57.-69

54-56

57

53 -50

4321

46-4744-4540-4327-39

46-4741 -4538-4020-37

40-4136-3931-3520-30

42-4439-4136-3822-35

..51-5348-5031-47

49-5244-48

8-43

4844-4742-4332-41

44-4542-4339-4121-38

4

32

1

67

Gra

de E

quiv

alen

ts fo

r S

elec

ted

Per

cent

iles

for

the

ST

AN

FO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST

, AD

VA

NC

ED

BA

TT

ER

Y

Bas

ed o

n M

inne

sota

Sta

te-W

ide

Nor

ms

(197

0)

Mal

es a

nd F

emal

es C

ombi

ned

Gra

de 7

Perc

entil

eG

rade

8Pe

rcen

tile

1025

5075

9010

2550

7590

Para

grap

h M

eani

ng48

.058

.770

.786

.010

5.0

53.5

65.0

80.0

103.

311

2.5

Spel

ling

50.0

60.5

74.0

88.0

105.

05.

1.0

67.0

82.7

104.

011

7.5

Lan

guag

e47

.0.

57.0

71.5

55.5

102.

048

.062

.076

.508

.510

8.5

Ari

thm

etic

Com

puta

tion

-12.

851

.057

.865

.773

.349

.058

.069

.684

.010

0.0

Ari

thm

etic

Con

cept

s57

.063

.773

.781

.79N

.059

.069

.081

.710

3.0

117.

0A

rith

met

ic A

pplic

atio

ns...

54 -

063

.074

M83

.795

.557

.570

.082

.410

4.0

115.

0So

cial

Stu

dies

52.0

61.0

71.3

86.0

104.

054

.066

.781

.010

6.0

115.

0Sc

ienc

e48

.058

.069

.091

.010

4.7

52.0

63.0

81.5

101.

311

3.0

Minnesota State-Wide Norms

for

THE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Forms X-4 and Y-4

Full Length and "Class Period" Versions

Revised 1965

Grades 9, TO, II, 12

Males and Females Combined

The following tables contain Minnesota norms for the Iowa Testsof Educational Development. These norms are based on the scores ofMinnesota high school students tested in the fall of 1964.

Grade N ( Schools) N (Students)9 155 11,555

10 138 9,108

11 125 8,565

12 54 2,942

These norms were revised in 1965 by the Student CounselingBureau at the University of Minnesota, which administers the Minne-sota State-Wide Testing Programs. Forms X-4 and Y-4 were first usedin the Program in the fall of 1964, replacing Forms X-3 and Y-3, uponwhich the previous, 1956, Minnesota norms were based.

The representativeness of these norms was checked by comparingthe Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test (MSAT) distributions forschools using ITED at each grade level with MSAT distributions forall Minnesota high schools. MSAT is administered to virtually everyMinnesota junior each year and thus serves as a good scholastic apti-tude "bench mark" against which to judge the representativeness ofany Minnesota norm group. From this and other checks the 1965 ITEDnorms appear quite representative of Minnesota students at each re-spective grade level.

The scores used in the norms are standard scores. Although thevarious forms of ITED are equated through the use of standard scoresntl a single norm table should suffice for all forms, enough differences

exist between Forms 3 and 4 so it is not advisable to use these tableswith the old Forms X-3 and Y-3. Users are cautioned that equalstandard scores on two or more subtests does not necessarily represent

69

equivalent performance (See pages 33-34, "How to Use the TestResults," 1TED Manual).

When 1TED was restandardized nationally in 1963, the publishersadopted the commonly accepted convention of computing norms tothe midpoint of the class interval. Therefore, the same convention hasbeen adopted in the preparation of these norms.

The Iowa Tests of Educational Development, Form 4, have ninesubtests and a Composite Score.

Test 1 Understanding of Basic Social Concepts

Test 2 Background in the Natural Sciences

Test 3 Correctness and Appropriateness of Expression

'west 4 Ability to do Quantitative Thinking

Test 5 Ability to Interpret Reading Materials in the Social Studies

Test 6 Ability to Interpret Reading Materials in the Natural Sci-ences

Test 7 Ability to Interpret Literary Material

Test 8 General Vocabulary

Composite The Composite Score is based on a combination, of thescores on Tests 1-8. Each test receives approximately equalweighting in determination of this score.

Test 9 Use of Sources of Information

70

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONPL DEVELOPMENT

Forms X-4 and Y-4

Revised 1965 Based on Fall Administration 1964

NINTH GRADE

Males and Females Combined

StandardPercentile

Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test StandardScore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. C 9 Score

27 .. 09 . , 99 99 . . . . 90 99 2720 99 08 911 08 98 90 90 98 98 2625 98 96 98 97 96 98 98 OS 07 25

24 97 94 99 97 96 95 97 98 96 95 2423 96 91 98 96 94 93 96 97 95 93 2322 94 87 97 9.1 91 90 94 95 92 91 2221 91 83 94 02 88 87 92 93 90 88 2120 88 78 92 SO 85 84 88 90 86 85 20

19 84 73 89 85 81 81 84 87 82 82 19IS 80 07 84 SI 77 78 79 82 77 77 1817 75 61 78 7S 72 74 75 75 72 73 1716 69 53 71 73 67 69 69 68 67 OS 1615 02 46 63 68 62 64 03 61 61 02 15

14 .53 41 55 61 57 58 56 53 53 56 1413 '45 36 47 54 51 51 51 46 46 50 1312 39 32 40 48 44 45 44 40 39 42 1211 3.1 26 33 40 38 38 38 33 32 35 1110 29 21 26 31 30 31 31 27 26 30 10

9 22 17 20 24 22 20 25 21 20 26 98 17 12 15 '18 15 19 19 15 15 21 87 13 8 12 12 10 13 13 11 10 17 70 8 5 8 8 6 9 9 8 7 12 65 6 4 6 6 3 7 6 5 4 7 5

4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 3 2 4 4:3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 32 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 21 1 1 1

71

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Forms X-4 and Y-4

Revised 1965 Rased on Fall Administration 1964

TENTH GRADE

Males and Females Combined

StandardScore

PercentileTest Test Test Test Test Test Test Test

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CTest

9Standard

Score

30 . . . . . . 99 . , 3029 99 .99 98 . . 2928 99 no 96 98 98 no 66 98 99 2827 98 97 98 97 97 98 98 97 97 2720 97 95 06 96 95 97 98 96 95 2625 05 91 09 95 94 92 96 97 94 92 25

24 93 87 08 93 92 89 94 95 92 89 2423 90 81 96 90 89 86 92 03 88 86 2322 87 76 93 88 85 82 90 90 85 82 2221 83 69 00 85 80 78 86 86 80 78 2120 79 63 86 81 76 74 81 81 75 73 20

19 73 55 81 75 71 7(1 75 76 69 68 1918 68 49 75 70 60 60 69 69 63 62 1817 62 43 67 66 61 61 64 61 57 57 1716 55 36 50 60 55 56 58 53 51 51 1615 48 29 51 54 50 50 52 45 45 46 15

14 40 25 42 48 46 44 45 37 38 40 1413 32 21 35 41 40 38 40 31 32 34 1312 27 18 28 36 34 32 34 26 25 28 1211 23 14 23 29 29 27 29 20 20 22 1110 19 11 18 22 22 21 23 16 15 19 10

9 14 8 13 16 16 18 18 13 11 15 98 11 6 10 12 11 13 14 9 8 12 87 8 4 7 8 7 9 10 7 5 9 76 5 2 5 5 4 6 7 5 3 7 65 4 2 3 4 3 5 5 3 2 4 5

4 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2 43 2 . . 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 32 1 . . . . . . 1 21 1 . . 1

72

Minnesota State-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Forms X-4 and Y-4

Revised 1965 Based on Fall Administration 1964

ELEVENTH GRADE

Males and Females Combined

PercentileStandard

ScoreTest Test Test Test Test Test Test Test

1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 CTest

9Standard

Score

33 99 3332 08 .. 3231 69 . . 66 97 .. 3130 99 : . 98 99 08 91.1 96 99 30

29 97 99 97 97 06 99 98 94 98 2928 95 97 .. 96 95 04 98 117 93 96 2827 93 05 99 04 93 92 96 96 91 92 2726 90 91 98 92 91 89 94 94 89 87 2625 86 80 90 89 88 85 92 92 86 83 25

24 82 80 93 87 84 80 88 89 82 77 2423 78 74 90 83 79 75 85 85 78 r - ,)- 2322 73 67 85 79 74 70 81 81 72 67 2221 08 60 79 70 68 64 76 76 67 62 2120 03 53 74 71 63 60 69 70 61 58 20

11) 57 46 67 64 58 56 62 63 55 53 1918 52 0 60 59 5° SL 56 55 9 47 1817 46 :14 53 56 48 47 51 47 43 42 1716 40 27 45 50 43 42 40 40 37 37 1615 34 22 :30 44 39 37 40 33 32 32 15

14 27 19 29 38 :34 32 :34 27 fi7 27 1413 21 10 23 33 29 27 30 22 21 22 1312 18 13 111 28 25 23 25 18 17 18 1211 14 10 15 22 21 19 21 14 13 14 1110 11 8 11 17 16 14 17 11 9 12 10

9 8 ti 8 13 11 12 13 8 7 10 98 6 4 6 9 8 8 10 6 5 8 87 4 3 4 6 5 5 6 4 3 0 76 2 2 3 4 3 4 5 3 2 4 05 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2 5

1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 . 1 43 1 .. 1 1 321

21

73

Minnesota Stat,f-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF nDLICATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Forms X-4 and Y-4

Revised 1965 Based on Fall Administration 1964

TWELFTH GRADE

Males and Females Combined

StandardScore

PercentileTest Test Test Test Test Test Test Test

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CTest

9Standard

Score

5 99 i54 98 143 97 i32 99 : : 66 96 321 99 .. .. 98 99 98 95 II0 98 99 .. 96 98 96 66 93 66 30

29 96 98 .. 94 95 95 99 97 91 97 2928 93 96 99 92 93 93 97 06 89 94 2827 90 93 98 89 90 90 95 94 87 89 2726 87 89 96 86 87 86 92 92 85 83 2625 , 83 93 83 S3 81 SO 89 SI 78 25

24 77 77 89 80 79 76 85 85 77 72 2423 73 71 84 76 73 71 81 81 71 67 2322 67 64 78 73 67 66 77 75 66 62 2221 C2 5S 73 69 61 61 71 69 61 57 2120 56 51 67 64 56 57 64 62 55 51 20

19 50 44 60 5S 51 53 56 56 49 46 1918 44 38 53 .7.3 46 49 50 49 43 40 1817 39 32- 45 49 41 44 45 41 37 35 1716 34 25 38 44 36 39 40 34 31 30 16:5 28 20 30 39 :33 35 34 27 26 25 15

14 22 17 24 33 29 30 29 21 22 21 1413 17 14 18 28 24 24 25 17 17 17 1312 13 11 14 24 20 20 21 14 1:3 13 1211 11 9 11 18 17 16 17 10 9 10 1110 9 6 8 13 13 13 13 8 7 8 10

9 6 5 6 10 11 10 10 6 5 7 98 4 4 4 7 6 7 7 5 3 5 87 3 2 3 5 4 5 5 3 2 4 76 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 3 65 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 5

4 1 1 1 4:3 32 21 1

74

Standen) Scores for Selected Percentilesof 10, 25, 50, 75, 93 for

THE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Forms X-4 and Y-4

Based on Minnesota State-Wide Norms (Revised 1965)

Males and Females Combined

NINTH GRADEPer-

centile 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9Per-

centile

10 6.4 7,5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.2 6.2 6.7 7.0 5.6 1025 9.4 10.8 9.8 9.1 0.4 8.2 9.0 0.7 9.8 8.8 2550 13.6 15.6 13.4 12.3 12.8 12.8 12.2 13.6 13.6 13.0 5075 17.0 19.4 16.6 16.4 17.6 17.2 17.0 17.0 17.6 17.5 7590 20.7 22.8 19.3 20.3 21.7 22.0 20.5 20.0 21.0 21.7 90

TENTH GRADEPer-

centilePer-

centile1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9

10 7.7 9.7 8.0 7.5 7.8 7.2 7.0 8.2 8.7 7.3 1025 11.5 14.0 11.4 10.4 10.4 10.7 10.3 11.8 12.0 11.5 2550 13.3 18.2 14.9 14.3 15.0 15.0 14.7 15.6 15.8 15.8 5075 10.3 21.2 18.0 19.0 19.8 20.2 19.0 18.2 20.0 20.4 7590 23.0 24.8 21.0 23.0 23.3 24.3 22.0 22.0 23.5 24.3 90

ELEVENTH GRADEPer-

centilePer-

centile1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9

10 9.7 11.0 9.7 8.2 8.7 8.5 8.0 0.7 10.2 9.0 1025 13.7 15.6 13.3 11.5 12.0 12.5 12.0 13.6 13.7 13.6 2550 17.7 19.6 16.6 16.0 17.4 17.8 16.8 17.4 18.2 18.5 5075 22.4 23.2 20.2 20.8 22.2 23.0 20.9 20.8 22.5 23.6 7590 26.0 25.8 23.0 25.3 25.7 26.3 24.5 2-1.3 26.5 26.6 90

TWELFTH GRADEPer-

centilePer-

centile1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9

10 10.5 11.5 10.7 9.0 9.2 9.0 9.0 11.0 11.2 11.0 '1025 14.5 16.0 14.2 12.2 13.2 13.2 13.0 1.1.7 14.8 15.0 2550 19.0 19.9 17.6 17.2 18.8 18.2 18.0 18.1 19.2 19.8 5075 23.5 23.7 21.4 22.7 23.3 23.8 21.7 22.0 23.7 24.5 7590 27.0 26.2 24.2 27.3 27.0 27.0 25.3 25.3 28.5 27.2 90

75

STA

NFO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST, H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

BA

TT

ER

Y

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s

Form

s W

, X

Gra

de 9

ST

AN

DA

RD

SC

OR

E

Per-

cent

ileE

ndi.

Num

.C

omp.

Mat

hem

atic

sPa

rt A

Tot

.R

UG

Scie

nce

Part

AT

ot.

Soc.

Stud

.Sp

ell.

Art

s &

Bus

S.

Tec

h.H

uman

EC

M).

Com

p.Pe

r-ce

ntile

99 98 97 96 95

66-8

465 64

62-6

361

68 -

SO

66-6

764

-65

63 62

64 -

SO

63 62 61 ..

66-S

465

63-6

461

-62

60

66-8

665

62-6

461 60

63-8

262 61 60

6S-S

266

-67

65 64 63

65-9

060

-88

65-S

464

5964

6358

63..

6262

6156

-57

61

99 OS 97 96 95

94 93 92 9 90

60 56 58

61 60 59

60 59 58- ..

59 .. 56 ,

57

ii6 .. 5S 57 56

59 58 th.

62 61 GO

59

60 ..55

60

59 5S

:59

54

94 93 92

91 90

89 88 87 86 85

.. 57

58 57

57 56

56 55

56 55

.. 56 57

..5S

5.7

53.. 57

"

56

..

52..

S9

SS 87 56 85 S4

S3

S2 81 SO

84 83 82 81 80

56 555.

6. 55

.. 55

5 -1

55 54

54 ..56

5556

.- 34.. :.

.

01..

53..

OS

ISi,9i:-.:

tg

.... .. ..

-

..91-

OS

St-

St2..w

91,

LI.

0 9

IS

.

61'

09

..St

fit

OS

ISZS

£S1-9.

94992.9

8969

99992.9

Sg69

.

. .It

.:.

..91- St

. .

61-

.

61,

.

St

09I97,9

£91-9

IS

. .

It..

61-

09

.

.

61,

.

81-

61.

..

..

..

.. . .

..

..

09..

09191,9

£9t9

S9992,9

8969

..ZS

.. ..StES 09

..16

..

0909

09

Z9

.

..

19

..

IS

9999L98969

02.

ILVEL

11

.. ..fit

. .

PS IS

Z9

29

1'9

.

IS

IS

Z9

19

..

E9

..ZS

ES

Z9

..

ES

OL

IL62.

EL

11

92.

9LLL

22,

62.

....

OS 6,9

SS

. .

99

69

ES

.

49

Z9

.

£9

..

. .

1-9

9

.

I'S

SG

9L

LL

Si,6L

I

STA

NFO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST, H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

BA

TT

ER

Y

Min

neso

taN

orm

s

For

ms

W, X

Gra

de 9

(Con

tinue

d)

ST

AN

DA

RD

SC

OR

E

Per-

cent

ileE

ngl.

Num

.C

omp.

Mat

hem

atic

sPa

rt A

Tot

.R

DG

Scie

nce

Part

Alo

t.So

c.St

ud.

Spel

l.A

rts

&H

uman

Bus

&E

con.

Tec

h.C

omp.

Per-

cent

&

49.

48 47 46 45

.. .. .. 4i

48 ..

. 49

. 45

46 .

47 . .47 ..

46 .

.. 44 ..

49 ..

49 48 47 46 45

44 43 42 41 40

.. .. 46

47 . 46

.. ..

.

44

4546 ..

48

..

45

43 42

48 .. 47

44 43 42 41 40

39'

38 37 36 3545

45

48

43

44 43

45. 45

.. 44

. 41

.. . 46

39 38 37 36 35

34 33 32 31 30

.. 4444

47/

42 41

. 42 .

44 43

4443 .

.

40

. 45

34 33 32 31 30

Ii;Ek

1E-9Z

EE

-ZE

11;

SE

Li-9.7.,

6Z-ST

,

OE1£

ZE

.

1:1:

IL91".

91:

6i -tiO

EIt.i."4;

0E-9.i,I E

ZE

EP,

6i-iii,O

E11:

Z1:

Ii-CF.

97,

Si!l;:.:-9i;

67,O

E-6i

OE

JIt:

ZE

-9.i;E

E

tE9E

9Z-9Z

OE

-Li:

ZE

- 1 E

tt919ZL

Z

IgEt,

C91-36

9ELi'.

SEE

EPECE

91:

LC

PCSE9E

Ct.

tE9t

IZ

i,I E

.I

EE

i",Fj

tE,

EE

Ot

LE

.

SE.

it9£9£

67,-97.O

EICE

E-Z

E

99I36

1111

it1:1

PI

61:

OP

Li;

St

91:

LE

SI:

I E.

iSE

91:

I9E

IIE

LE

6E01,

II,

4£St.

PC929£LE

01IIit£1PI

9191LI

SI61L

i:

SE6t:

.

--

6E

.6E

I

ItSE

SI:itE

P

62017

SCOE

'

017

9191LI

SI61

0i,IiiiCZPi,

itEt

SE6E

Ot

01'

It

01,

It

i

otOP

6E."

PP91,

i6.

Itgl

OZ13

ZZCZ

1Z

9.Z

93Li

SiSi;

VI-

Iti,P

ikEt.

it

It

OP

91.

317

Et

.Et

9393L

,."

8Z63

STA

NFO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST, H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

BA

TT

ER

Y

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s

For

ms

W, X

Gra

de 1

0

ST

AN

DA

RD

SC

OR

E

Per-

cent

ileE

n41.

Num

.C

omp.

Mat

hem

atic

sPa

rt A

Tot

.

.

RD

C,

Scie

nce

Part

AT

ot.

.

Soc.

Stud

.

,70

-82

67-6

9

116

65 64 63

,62 61 60

Spel

l.

70-8

26s

-60

66-6

765 64 63 62 61

Art

s &

Hum

ati

67-9

066 65 64 t1

3

62 61 60 59 SS 57

Bus

&E

con.

66-S

S63

-65

62 61 60

Tec

h.C

omp.

Per-

cent

ile

99 98 97 96 95

70-8

468

-69

67 66 65

74-S

O72

-73

71 7068

-69

71-8

069

-70

6S 67 66

70-8

468

-69

67 66 65

70-S

667

-60

66 65

69-S

468 67 66 65 64 #1

3

99 OS

97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90

94 93 92 91 90

64 63 62

67 66 65 64

65 64 113

64 63 62 61 60

64 63 62 61 ' 606

89 88 87 86 85

61 60

63 62 61 60

62 61 ..

59 5S

56-5

7

62 61

89 8S 87 86 85

84 83 82 81 80

59 - -

58'

59

.. 60

- -

59 58 57

59 SS

'..

59 58i

110

I

59

60 ..

84 83 82 81 80

9919

E9

_

99 1;9 09 19C

69

[19 tc[9 19

7.9

1:9

1-9

99 99 E9

99 7.9,9

S9

69

01 99IL 1:9

7.2

EL CC

1-P

CL

9299

8262 69 cc

19

Ir

ES

E9

1-9

(19

OS ES

IS

12

02

g9ES

I-c

19

16

7,9

7,9

7,9

CC

29,

8362

1999

99

IS

89

7-9

99 E9

E9 09197,9

E9P9

99

1-9

P2 9999L98969

Sc

Lc

cc

cc

29

99 02ILZLEL

fiL

6949.

9292LL8262

ST

AN

FO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST

, HIG

H S

CH

OO

L B

AT

TE

RY

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s

For

ms

W, X

Gra

de 1

0(C

ontin

ued)

ST

AN

DA

RD

SC

OR

E

Per-

cent

ileE

ndl.

Num

.C

omp.

ML

Aze

mat

ics

Part

AT

ot.

RD

GSc

ienc

ePa

r.. A

Tot

.So

c.St

ud.

Spel

l.A

rts

&H

uman

Bus

&E

con.

Tec

h.C

omp.

Per-

cent

ile

49 48 47 46 45

5I)

.. 5052 . ..

4949

50 ..51

)

4948

51

49 48 47 46 45

44 43 42 41 40

. .. 49

.. 4951

48 . ..

48 .ii.

49

49.. .

4847

.". 50

44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35

39 38 37 36 35

4848

50 ..

47

.

.

4648

48 47

.. 47.. 49

34 33 32 31 30

.. 4747 46

49

.

46 4545

47

it;

4634 33 32

4831

I30

IIEF

ting6I-SI

6Z-91

9E-F E

IC-O

EJet E

LE

""E

E

SOSi. re

PC

0E-SI

I E-I E

1I-EE

SE

6I-Si;zx-O

E11tE

LI-II

6Z-8z

1E-O

EIE

SI-III E

-GI

1 E -C

E

EE

-9ISE

-PEL

E-9E

SE

0E-9.Z

EE

-1£PE1-..:E

SI6Z

-911 E

-OE

1E-Z

1:

1gEt

CtiL86

6E9E

9f:-SEL

EO

FL

ESE

IPSE

..19ELSE

n91L

ESE

PE-E

£-

SE..

91LE

SE91LE

81

61OP

ItZP

91L

ERE

6E

t E9E

-SEL

ESE61

S9L86

0111I IZ

1PI

-

61OV

IF61

11-It

OP

61OP

GEOP

IP..

SE61

61OP

-.EP

Pt

OP..IP

OPIt

DI

IIIIEL

PI

SI91

8161

PP.

.

..

IV

SPE

P

ItEP

..CP

Et

OP"

..IPCl'

.SPC

P.£P

IP....Et

SI91LI

8161

OZ1 /

IICZ

iI

It.

.

tt"

Et

91-..

..SP

....PP..

..

.

-

PP''

"Et

....

EP-

9tLP

.'

PP

-

PP37IIIIE

IPI

Si;91L

ZSI61

Pt..

LP

..-'

..

SP..

..

SP..

91.

..

SP9P

.PP

Pt..

..

-

...."SP

St-'

SP..91 ,

SI9IL

iSI61

STA

NFO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST, H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

BA

TT

ER

Y

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s

For

ms

W, X

Gra

de T

T

STA

ND

AR

D S

CO

RE

Per-

cent

ileE

ndl.

Num

.C

omp.

Mat

hem

atic

sPa

rt A

Tot

.R

DG

Scie

nce

Part

AT

o!.

Soc.

Stud

.Sp

ell.

Art

s &

Hum

anB

us &

Eco

n.T

ech.

Com

p.Pe

r-ce

ntile

99 98 97 96 95

74-S

472

-73

70-7

169 68

76-5

074

-75

72-7

371 70

76-8

074

-75

73 72 71

72-8

771 70 69

74 -

S470

-73

68-6

9

67

72-8

670

-71

69 68 67

75-8

774 73 72 71

71-8

269

-70

GS

67

72-8

269

-71

68

71-9

070 69 6S

.

67

73 -

5871

-72

7068

-69

75-8

474 73 72 71

99 98 97 96 95

94 93 92 91 90

67 66 ..

69 68 67 66

70 69 68 67

6S 67 66

66 65

66 65

70 69 68 67

66 65

64

67 66 65 64

66 65 64 63

67 66

70 617

68 67 66

94 93 92 91 90

89 88 87 86 85

65 64-

..

.. 65 64

66 65

..

65 .. 64

64 63

64 636 65

63 6263 .

.

_. .. 62 61

65 64 63

65-

..

64 63

89 S8 Si 86 85

84 83 82 81 80

63 . .6- 2

-

61

63 62

64 63

63

62 61

62 61

64 63

6i

62 61

..

60 59

62 61

62 61

84 83 82 SI 80

E9

559515s5699999195969

14j

cc

EC

cc

cC

1505IS

Gc

Ec

1519

ycFc

Cc

1-9

rc

CC

99YC

599

S9

9995

6S

SS

092.,2

Cc

9519

99ec

99LC

:V

9

15-99gc

99

9C.2

6999

192,9

99S

c4(4

991909

Sc

S9

S9

s;(-:19

69

IrS

c.09

59S

c

01.

ILSc

I9S

c09

6951

6519

69

692.9

tic(IV

69.CL

6509

91.

(1909

LL09

Sc

09S

!.03

096!

co

ST

AN

FO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST

, HIG

H S

CH

OO

L B

AT

TE

RY

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s

For

ms

W, X

Gra

de11

(Con

tinue

d)

ST

AN

DA

RD

SC

OR

E

Per-

cent

ileE

nd].

Num

.C

omp.

Mat

hem

atic

sPa

rt A

Tot

.R

DG

Scie

nce

Part

AT

ot.

Soc.

Stud

.Sp

ell.

Art

s &

Hum

anB

us &

Eco

n.T

ech.

Com

p.Pe

r-ce

nt&

49 48 47 46 45

.. 53 ..

52.. 54

.. .. 54 .. ..

. .. 52

.

52

.. 54 .

52

. ..

53 .. 52

.. 5053

.

54 .

49 48 47 46 45

44 43 42 41 40

52 .. ..

51 .. ..

53 .. ..

53 .. 52

51 .

5153

51 .. .. ..

.. .. 51

- .. 49

52

- ..

53 -

44 43 42 41 40

39 38 37 36 35

51 50

50 .. .

52 51

. .. 51

50

.

49

50 ..

52 51 ..

.. 50 ..

. .

.

..

50

..

48

51 .. ..

52 . 51

39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30

34 33 32 31 30

.. .. 49

.. . 49

.. .. 50

.. 50

48 .

49 .. 48

.. 50

. .

49

.. . 49

47 .

50 .. .. .

49

. 50

9E-2E

LE6E

-St

i,E-!-:(7.

2E-E

E10:

Lt:

I%-2

1-E-7.1:

112-c/-:

IX

1 E

tE-tE

! f1-E

-EE

111;

St.-1it,

EE

-1E(12-1

E-11Z

.:

7,E

2E-E

E9E

02-2i,E

E- 1 t

14-1-E91:

1E

.E-S

it,

tE24;

9E

II;-511E

-ZE

LE-9E

81:

0E-11r,

Et-1Ett

91:41E

6g-2 t,E

E-02

1-E

I

9I t

6

SE

6E01-

SE

6E01-

st62O

tt

LESE

6%

9ELESE

U

SE

W-

1.t:

SE6E

Ot

SE

-LEot -6E

II-

1;t.

61:

01-

I 1-

SE

01-

9S6

01It

11-11-

It01

1121-

tU

I-It

21-II-

7 , 1 .I I

71-E

t11-

71ttt

21-7,1

El

t IE

1-

Et

Et

VI-

t 1-

t:t-E

tE

lt 1

91t 1-

tt11-

111-tt

I

91

! I21-

(.11-L I

9 tE

11-91-

St

61(.1

91-9t

61

07.9 t

21-V

I-9t

(El

I i!7:Z

:

tr.

117

Ilg17SF

-

LI-

lit-S

t

t

!I t-

.1 1-

st

9t-

S t

91-

LI-9t

III-

LI-t1 1-

St

'111-

SI-

LI-

SI-

17,

74;

Et,

LI-t7,

""!

St

,Li,

11Z

s61-

01'

co

ST

AN

FO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST

, HIG

H S

CH

OO

L B

AT

TE

RY

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s

For

ms

W, X

Grv

ds 1

2

ST

AN

DA

RD

SC

OR

E

Per-

cent

ileE

na'N

um.

Com

p-M

athe

mat

ics

Part

AT

ot.

RD

GSc

ienc

ePa

rt A

Tot

.So

t.St

ud.

Spel

l.A

rts

&H

uman

Bus

&E

con.

Tec

h.C

omp.

Per-

cent

ile

99S0

-84

79-8

077

-80

77-8

776

-86

74-8

676

-87

I74

-82

76-S

273

-90

75-8

875

-84

9998

78-7

978

74-7

676

74-7

572

-73

7572

-73

74-7

57-

174

00 00

97 674

-77

72-7

377 76

73 7275 74

72-7

371

70-7

170

7471 70

72-7

370

-71

, , - ..

71

73 7'43

97 9695

7571

7369

7370

7172

95

9471

7411

869

7269

69r-

-69

7194

9370

744

7267

686-

893

9273

6971

7111

870

7002

9169

7270

-6)

167

676S

.67

6991

rks

7169

6iI

6990

415

6666

117

6589

ss70

6869

6665

.14

S769

6765

87Si

;67

6867

Ii5

115

S685

6s

6.i

6-1

6;67

Si;

I-84

i66

6661

S3I

6667

61iI

6"-

1

82:

6582

SII

(V66

6563

663

66SI

SI)

6480

09I9

7,9

9919

99..

"69

"cc

.

9999.

.

"..

'69

99..

"9.9.

.

"99

9999

9999L9

"L9

0919

Z9

£91'9

cc09498969

1.9

..09

..

99!.'

99L909

99.

.

99'

..

4989

4989

..

89

. .

89

9999L9Sc

69

0919

Z9

991-9

8969

"19

L989

8969

"89

1969

L9..

..

L9

89

"69

..

696c

69

0919Z

9E

969

9999L9S9

69

.

09

..

..

Z9

690919

6909

9989

69

69..

09..

0919

09..

0919

0919

99

99L98969

W.

ILZL

EL

12

19099

..

99

0919

"Z9

[91-9

0919

"19"..

aE9

1999

a99Z

9.

oz,ILZ

4E

LtL

949LLL8.!6L

I-9

S9

1'9

99Z

,999

Z9

179

99

- "Z9

. .

Z9..

1-9

E9. .

t999..

£91-9

9L9L/28L6L

ST

AN

FO

RD

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

TE

ST

, HIG

H S

CH

OO

L B

AT

TE

RY

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s

Form

s W

, X

Gra

de 1

2(C

ontin

ual)

ST

AN

DA

RD

SC

OR

E

Per-

cent

ileE

ngl.

Num

.C

omp.

Mat

hem

atic

sPa

rt A

Tot

.R

UG

Scie

nce

Part

A

54

Tot

.

58 57 56 55 54 53

Soc.

tSt

ud.

54 53 52 51 30 51

'

Spel

l. ---

5.c

54 5.3 52

,

I ,

Art

s &

Bus

Ir.

Tec

h..

Hum

anE

con.

Com

p.-

--

- -

--

- -

- -

54

55

53

54.5

4-57

-" "

53

5155

52

- -

- -

- -

-'

5051

51

Per-

'ce

nt&

-49 4: I,

,45 4

I

V.:

41 u.

'

39 38 3: 3e.

34 33 '12

31 30

49 48 47 46 45

56 .. 55 ..

..

54 -.

.. 54

.. 55 ..

54 '', 3

44 43 42 41 40

.. -. ..

54 ..

.. . . 53

53 52

54 --

..

52-

51

53 52 51

39 38 37 36 35

.. ..

53 - -

52 ..

51

53 ..

..

50

34 33 32 31 30

..

52 .. ..

..

.

51 ..

52

49

30 49

IZ1:I-

St4-S6

9E-S:

ISE

-LE

01--61:It

GZ

-£1:

Ll. O

EO

V-t£

NE

..1E

(11:-ZI

Z£-SZ

FE-1E

SE-E

t9£-SE

OE

LE

LC

Gin;

ZE

-OE

FE-E

tSE

0£-S46£1£

SC9E

.

1£-SZZ

E6C

-1:£9£-SE

11:-SZ

FE-Z

ESE

LE

-9£

a-sr,S£-E

£9£

1 £-SlS£-Z

t91L

£

l£-Sl££

9E-6£

L£

1E-SZ

6E-Z

£L

£-S£O

P-8£

11;Et

ItEt-

ti

GE

Ot

£1-11FtSt

61-8£O

FI6

Z6

SE6£I F-O

tr,tE

l-

OI

LE

Gi.:14.:

OF

LE

61-81O

P

IF16

It6£-S£

OF

IF

SC6E

Of-

SE-L

£O

6-6£Itl6

8161OPIt

RC

61Of-

ItIt

ItgPIt

S9L86

01i

I ISt

Z I

i

El

t1Ilt

91-

Lt

£tIFSF

ttSF

ItZI-

Et

It

..Et

Ft-SF

116

ItIt

IF

aEt

.

Et

ttSt

.Zt.IP

ItPtSP

.FtSt96

0111

11It61

SI91I

..1,1

5l61or.1

IZ1-Z.

EZ

tZ

It14

St6tof-

96Lt.

St9F

96IFSt

SF.OF

PI-

SF

.

96L6

St

FtSP96

LP

91-

Lt

Lt

SI91LI

SI61

Gt

OSIS

IF

SF66

Lt.

St

GP

OS

ItO

F

""66.

OS

St

£16-

GP

8666

Ol

1Z

Zg

El

tg

SE:401

.1Z

sz61:

tc:( .

-0. c

£(.-:

SF66

OS

61

ISZ;(1

SF"IFst

..--

IS

66"OS

..OS

OSIS

Si:9ZL

gSi;6g

Standard Scores for Selected Percentiles for the

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, HIGH SCHOOL BATTERY

Based on Minnesota State-Wide Norms (Revised 1968)

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

End. Num. MathComp. A

RAG SCIA

Soc.Stud.

Spell. Art & Bus. & Tech.Hum. Econ. Comp.

Per-centile

GRADE 9

10 34.0 37.0 39.0 35.0 34.0 35.7 35.5 35.0 33.7 38.7 1025 42.3 2.0 45.2 39.8 40.3 41.7 41.7 41.0 38.8 43.5 2550 47.7 48.5 49.8 58.0 40.4 17.2 47.6 46.3 44.5 49.2 5075 53.3 53.3 53.7 52.0 52.3 51.7 54.3 51.3 49,6 54.2 7590 58.0 59.0 57.7 56.5 57.5 57.0 59.0 58.0 54.0 58.5 90

GRADE 10

10 40.0 40.0 42.3 39.0 37.5 39.0 35.5 39.0 38.3 91.3 1025 45.0 45.0 47.2 44.0 43.5 44.8 44.8 45.2 44.0 46.7 2550 50.8 511.4 52.6 49.6 49.8 50.5 50.8 49.8 48.8 51,6 5075 56.3 57.3 58.3 55.5 50.3 56.3 57.0 55.5 54.0 57.5 '7590 61.7 63.5 62.7 61.7 61.5 62.0 62.3 61.0 59.3 63.0 90

GRADE 11

10 11.0 40.5 42.3 40.5 91.0 41.0 42.0 40.7 41.0 42.0 1025 47.3 47.0 48.3 46.3 46.7 47.0 47.3 44.8 47.7 48.0 2550 53.8 52.4 55.0 52.6 53.0 52.7 53.3 50,4 53.3 54.5 5075 59.7 59.0 61.0 59.0 59.3 58.7 59.0 57.0 59.0 59,3 7560 65.3 66,0 67.11 64.7 64.5 64.0 64.0 63.0 65.5 66.0 90

GRADE 12

10 43.5 43.0 41.5 41.0 41.5 40.5 43.5 43.0 45,5 44.7 1025 50.0 49.5 49.0 47.0 48.0 48.2 49.5 47.7 52.0 50.0 2550 56.3 55.0 55.0 54.3 54.8 54.7 55.6 54.3 58.4 55.8 5075 63.0 64.0 62.7 61.6 61.3 61.6 62.5 61.5 63.5 G3.5 7590 G8.0 71.0 68.3 65.8 66.5 66.5 67.5 66.0 69.0 68.7 90

92

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for theMINNESOTA ENGLISH TEST

1965-66ELEVENTH GRADE

MALES AND FEMALES, COMBINED

These are the (dela' norms used for N11:1 in the Nlintiesota !lig!' Schoolstatt..1Vide Testing Program.

hese norms are based on 1,009 juniors from fourteen Nlitinesota hiF,11set ools selected front those %vhich took NIET the loll of 1965 as part of (lieNliimi.sota High Sulam] Slitte-Wide Testing Program. Site of junior classesiii these selected high sdiools ranged from 12 to 132. The Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test (MSAT) scores of the schools t.tking N1E the fall of1965 were carefully studied and the g nip selected to be representative ofall Minnesota high who'd juniors. Studies of groups selected because theare representative of the entire state on NISAT have shown that we obtainnorms reprsentative of the entire state on other tests. Because the fourteenschools are representative oo N1SA, as shown below.. we are ((Iii t(' con-fident they are also representative on NIET.

Minnesota Scholastic Aptiltidi Test 1)ata on Fourteen Iligh Schoolsin NlET Norms Croup and fur All ittnnas

91"-iJuniors from Fourteen Schools All Juniors

56fiinNIET Norms Group

Number 1,009 61 919Mean .. 3.1.7 34.7Standard Deviation . 14.1 1.1,7

For a further description of MET see: Swanson, Edward O., "The NE-lit--sot:I English Test, Student Counseling Bureau Bulletin and Occupatio.lalNewsletter, 17:7-8, January, 1965.

Percentile ! PercentileRaw Score Rank Raw3S5core

58 -i- 1

::11:11

Rank

579998

59 979654-55

::: ii11911

53 95 4452 9-I :i951 93 29 355(1 92 2S :i249 27 2848

8911 :

Di 24II88 25 21

46 87 21 IS45 85 23 IS44 83 22 1243 MI) 21 942 78 20 7

iii1,)1)

76 19 574 18 471 17 3

:38 (9) 15-16 237 66 1-14 I:i6 (13

These norms were furnished through the courtesy of the Student CounselingBureau, Office of the Dean of Students, University of Minnesota.

93

Norms for

MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)

Form C'

Norms A. EnteringB. All Minnesota

freshmen to Minnesota collegesluniors, tested Winter

PercentileA B

tested as highof 1969-70.

RawScore

_

school tuniors.

RawScore

PercentileA B

....__ . ________75 119 1111 38 511 6874 99 99 17 54 6673 09 00 03 52 6472 99 99 i5 40 6171 99 90 (4 6 59

71) 99 99 i3 42 5669 99 ¶6) i2 30 5468 99 119 il 36 5167 99 99 01 32 4866 99 99 29 29 4565 99 99 28 26 364 99 ¶6) 27 23 1063 98 99 211 21 3762 08 98 25 18 3461 97 98 21 16 3160 96 97 23 15 2859 05 97 22 13 2558 94 116 21 11 2257 93 96 2(1 9 2056 92 05 10 8 1755 91 94 18 6 14

54 90 93 17 5 125:3 80 92 16 4 1)

52 88 01 15 3 751 86 90 14 3 li50 84 89 13 2 4

40 82 88 12 2 348 81) 86 11 1 247 78 85 10 1 1

46 76 84 9 I I

45 73 82 8 1 I

44 71 80 7 1 1

43 69 79 6 1 1

42 66 77 5 1 1

41 6:1 75 4 1 1

40 61 73 :3 I 1

39 59 71 2 1 1

1 1 1

°MSAT, Form C, was first administered to all Minnesota high school juniors in1966-67. It superceded MSAT, Form A, used with juniors 1957-58 to 1965-66.

°These are the "official" percentiles included on the reports sent to high schoolsand colleges. These norms are equated to the original MSAT, Form A, normsbased on 3,401 entering freshmen to the University of Minnesota in the fall of1959. Thus, these percentile ranks are equivalent to the MSAT percentile rankswhich were reported from 1959-66.

"N =65,830; Mean=32.47; Standard Deviation= 13,19

94

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)

Freshmen Entering Various Types of Minnesota CollegesFall, 1968

MSAT

Per-centile

9998979695

Jr.Colleges

60-7558-5950-5754-55

33

St.Colleges

61-710-60

585756

Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coll.

Four Yr.Liberal Arts

68-756766. .

65

Per-centile

67-75666561

09989796959493929190

9493929190

523130

. .

49

55343352

6362. .

91. .

64

63

8988878685

48

174746

51

50

..1.1

60

5858

6261

W)

89888786

84S3828180

45

'11

43

48

1'757

50

59

58

8-183828180

7978777675

12

1 i. .

46

15

55

51

57

50

7978777fi75

7473727170

0

39

44

43

53

52

55

54

7473727170

6968676665

38

37

42

;11

51

5053

52

6968676665

6403626160

36

35

40

39

in

1851

6463626160

5958575655

34 50

49

5958575655

5453525151)

33

32

37 46

;15

48

5453525150

95

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)

Entering Freshmen to Minnesota CollegesFall, 1968

MSAT

Per-centile

19181716-IS .._413-12110:i9:i817it;is

Jr.Colleges

31

30

20

St.Colleges

35

Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coil.

44

Four Yr.Liberal Arts-7

46

Per-centile

49.184746151.11312

.1 I

10.

39:i8:i7:36is

3413

42

:15

.1.1

2,.5

33

32:11

1:i

11

i:i32ilill-9282721;25

. .

27

2. 0

25

31:10

3!)

.12

:11

343332313021)

28272625

'..0.1

29

38.

40

39

2423222120

24

23:28

37

:.1(.5

38

37

2423222120

1918171615

22

21

2735

31

:i6

35

34

1918171615

1413121110

20

16

. .

25

24. .

33. .

32. .

33

3231

1413121110

98765

IS

1716

23

222120

3130292827

302928

. 27

98765

4321

1514131-12

19IS

16-175-15

2624-2520-231-19

2624-2521-23

1-20

4321

96

A

iV

70

65

60

55

50

45S

C40

35

30

25

20

15

10

MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)

Row Stores Corresponding to ti,r median. the twiddle two thirds 'bold bat',and the middle 90% (light bar) for all Minnesota junior norms.

the official entering college fteshmen norms, and norms Tor freshmencolleting vatic.us type, of Minnotolo Colleges in fall. 1963.

AllJuniors

Official JuniorNorms College College

State

97

U of M Four Yr

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

Entering Freshmen to Minnesota Colleges

Fall, 1968

HSR

Per-centile

Jr.Colleges

St.Colleges

Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coll.

Four Yr.Liberal Arts

Per-centile

9098979605

96-9904-95

9391-92

00

98-999790951)1

99 90 9998979095

9493929190

898887

85-8684

Oi9291

98

9798

0493929190

8988878685

8382818079

908988

87

06

6 O'

96

O5

898887868584-83828180

8483828180

7877767574

86

684

94

93

7978777675

727170

83

8281..

92

91

1)4

oi

7978777075

7473727170

6968

6766

807978

77

90

6 92

7473727170

6968676665

6564

6362

76

7574..

88

87

91

90

6968676665

646:3626160

61605958..

7372

7170

86

684

89

88

6463626100

51)58575655

5756555453

no68

oi

..8:3

82

87

86

6

5958575655

5453525150

Oi515049

66

66463

ii

6 84

83

5453525150

98

Minnesota State-Wide Norms for

Entering Freshmen to Minnesota Co newts

Fail, 1968(Continued)

HSR

Per-centile

Jr.Colleges

St.Colleges

Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coll.

Four Yr.Liberal Arts

Per-centtlt.

.19 48 79 19

48 62 82 IS47 47 lil 75 17

46it,

1660

SI 16

'I:'II 45 59 76 i;ii 4113 11 ,''.2 13 AS 75 79 12

1 57 750 2 56!I 11

s 40 55 7317 51 72 76 :;1; 39 75 :o,

15 35 53 .35

1$ 37 52 70 74 :11

13 36 51 7: :13

2 At) 69-, - 32

31 35 310 34 49 71 !'il

29 33 48 67.....

71) 228 32 17 66 69 2527 6 . 65 2726 31 45 115 Iii... 2625 30 11 66 252423 28 42 62 64-65 2322 27 . . 63 2221 26 -11 61 62 2!20 25 .10

. . . 2019 24 i9 59 61 1918 23 18 58 59-60 IS17 i7 57 58 1716 22 i6 56 57 II;15 21 15 56 IA

14 20 33-34 Si-!)!) 1.1

13 19 32 52 52.53 1312 17-18 31 51 51 12

16 30 49-50 19-50 11

:11 IS '28-29 . . 47-4S II)9 14 26-27 6-47 6 98 13 25 44-45 44-15 87 12 23-24 42-43 0-43 76 10-11 21-22 39-41 37-39 65 8-9 18-20 36-35 33-30 5

4 7 15-17 32-35 211t2. -I

3 5-6 12-14 26-31 21 -28 32 3-4 8-11 18-25 16-23 21 1-2 1-7 1-17 1- 1 5 I

99

95

90

85

8(1

7.5

C. 70

065

00

55

50

A45

10

35

3U

20

15

10

5

0

HIGH ICHOOL PERCENTILE RANKS (HSRI

Mrs corresponding to the pcentiles for the median, pre middle rwoilrirrils r bold bur.,and the middle 90°e flight bra) for freshmen entering various type, of

Minnesota College, in Toll, 1961.1With all Minnelolo Juniors included far comparison)

AllJuniors

JuniorCollt.ges

State U of NI row. Yr. Lib.Collcgs Fur Ir. Coll, Arts

100

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY (GATB)

andMINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORY (MVII)

Norms for the Curriculum or Occupational (Training) Areas inMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

The GATB and MVII norms on the following pages were furnishedby Dr. David Pucci and Dr. Howard F. Nelson of the Department ofIndustrial Education, University of Minnesota. The norms were gen-erated as a part of their Project MINI-SCORE° (Minnesota StudentCharacteristics and Occupationally Related Education).

All of the 17,500 applicants to the fall -time, day trade programsconducted in the Area Vocational-Technical Schools of Minnesotaduring the period from September, 1966 to October, 1968 took thepaper andpeneil portions of the GATB as part of an extensive bat-tery used in the Project MINI-SCORE research.

In Project MINI-SCORE the training courses offered in MinnesotaArea Vocational-Technical Schools were 'grouped into 63 relativelyhomogeneous groupings by personnel from the Minnesota State De-partment of Vocational Education and the Department of IndustrialEducation at the University of Minnesota. Presently, GATB, B-1002,Form B, training norms have been developed for 27 of these groupswhich attract a large proportion of students. Norms for additionaltraining groups are being prepared and will be included as they be-come available. The 27 current training groups have been put into twoclusters as folloWs:

Cluster I

Air Conditioning, Refrigerationand Appliance Repair

Aircraft MechanicsAgri-TechnologyArchitectural DraftingAutornotivesDiesel MechanicsElectronicsCarpentryFarm Equipment MechanicsFluid Power TechnologyMachine Shop

Cluster IIAccountingChefs and CooksClerical TrainingCosmetologyData ProcessingDental AssistantInterior Design and Sales AssistantMedical Laboratory AssistantPractical Nursing.SalesSecretarial Training

°Project MINI-SCORE (Minnesota Student Characteristics and OccupationallyRelated Education) is supported by a grant from the Division of Comprehensiveand Vocational Research, Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare under the formal title "The Characteristics of Full-timeStudents in Post Secondary Trade Schools." Project, No. IIRD 5-0148.

101

Cluster I Continued Cluster II Continued

Mechanical Drafting and DesignPlumbing and SheetmetalPower and Home ElectricityPrinting and Graphic ArtsWelding

The specific courses which are included in each of these 27 areaare listed on the following pages.

Notice that Cluster I contains occupations usually referred to astrade or technical occupations which attract predominantly males.Cluster II contains occupations related to business and social serviceand tend to enroll mostly females or both males and females.

The norm groups for the 27 Training Area are made up ofstudents who successfully completed courses in the particulartraining programs. While these are important and useful normgroups, it is important to remember that success in training doesnot necessarily mean success on the job. Project MINI-SCOREis assembling follow-up data to examine the relationship betweentest scores and job success and satisfaction. These data will beavailable soon and will be published as a supplement to thisbook. Until they are available, however, counselors and studentsshould keep in mind the distinction between training-successand job-related norms.

Project MINI-SCORE used only the written portions of GATBin its test battery.

The omission of the GATB manipulative performance tests fromthe Project MINI-SCORE Battery means that data relating scoresfrom these tests to training experience in Minnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools and to subsequent job experience are not availableor forthcoming.

Counselors may encounter students whose other scores or tentativevocational plans would make the manipulative scores useful, how-ever. Many Minnesota counselors who have completed EmploymentService GATB training programs and who are certified to administerGATB will want to administer the manipulative tests to such students.Schools who do not have a personnel with this training may be ableto send selected students to their local Employment Service Office tohave the tests administered,

102

AREA VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOL TRAINING AREAS

hc 27 training arcas for which GATB norms are available arclisted below.

I. AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCEREPA IR

2. AIRCRAFT MECHANICS

3. AGRI-TECIINOLOGYAgri- Chemicals and Fertilizers, Sales and ServiceAgricultural Technician ( Animal Science )Agriculhire Technician ( Plant Science)Agricultural Sales Technician

4. ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING

5. A UTOMOT1VESAuto MechanicAuto Body RepairAutomobile ManagementAutomobile Technician

0, DIESEL MECHANICSDiesel MechanicsDiesel :Mechanics TechniciansTruck and Diesel Mechanics

7. ELECTRONICSElectronicsElectronics, CommunicationsElectronics, Computer MaintenanceElectronics, Industrial and Home Entertainment ServiceElectronics, Industrial TechnicalElectronics, Radio and TelevisionElectronics, Technician CommunicationsElectronics, Technician IndustrialElectronics, TechnicianElectronics, TeChnology

8. CARPENTRYBuilding ConstructionCarpentry

9. FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICSFarm Equipment MechanicsFarm Mechanics

10. FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY

103

II, MACHINE SHOPMachine OperatorMachinistProduction Machinist

12. MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGNEngineering DraftingIndustrial DraftingIndustrial Drafting TechnologyMachine DraftingTechnical DraftingDesign TechnologyDrafting and Design Technology

13. PLUMBING AND SHEETNIETAL

14. POWER AND HOME ELECTRICITYElectricalElectrical, ConstructionElectrical, MaintenanceElectrical, TechnologyLineman ElectricianPower Plant Operation

15. PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTSGraphic ArtsPhotolithography and off-set printingOffset Printing

16. WELDING

17. ACCOUNTING

18. CHEFS AND COOKSChefCook, InstitutionalHotel and Restaurant Cooking

19. CLERICAL TRAININGClerical Record KeepingClerk, General OfficeClerk-TypistClerk-Typist Machine Operator

20. COSMETOLOGY

21. DATA PROCESSINGClerical Training and Data ProcessingClerical Training and Key PunchTabulating Machine Operator

104

22. DENTAL ASSISTANT

23. INTERIOR DESIGN AND SALES ASSISTANT

24. MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT

25. PRACTICAL NURSING

26. SALESSales ManagementSales and MarketingSales Training

27. SECRETARIAL TRAININGEducational SecretaryHospital Station SecretarySecretarial Training, GeneralSecretarial Training, MedicalStenographic TrainingMedical Office AssistantMedical Office ServiceLegal Secretary

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY (GATB)

Project MINI-SCORE Training Success Norms

forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools*

Description of the Profiles

The Aptitude Score Scaleis plotted along the left sideof each page. A bar for each iie

The light portion of the bar

of scores for the middle

represents the micIdle 90 per

cessfully completed courses

the 1)111. represents the range

two-thirds of these students.

cent of the group. That is, 90

in that area. The bold part of

84' ; ilc

of the seven aptitude scoresrepresents the range of scoresfor 8-tridents who Wee suc-

ileper cent of the students in theProject Nfini-Score researchwho successfully completedcourses in a particular area had GATB Aptitude scores which fellbetween the top and bottom ends of the light bars, and two-thirds ofthe students had Aptitude scores which fell between the top andbottom of the bold portion of the bars.

The seven GATB Aptitudes for which Minnesota Norms are avail-able are as follows:

Aptitude G General Learning Ability (Intelligence)The ability to "catch on" or understand instructions and underlyingprinciples and the ability to reason and make judgments.

Aptitude V Verbal AptitudeThe ability to understand the meaning of words ;,ad the ideas theystand for, and to use them effectively.

Aptitude N Numerical AptitudeAbility to perform arithmetic operations quickly and accurately.

Aptitude S Spatial AptitudeAbility to think visually of geometric forms and to comprehendthe two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional objects.

°Please refer to Page 101 for a discussion of the Project MINI-SCORE Projectand a description of the norm groups.

106

Aptitude P Form PerceptionAbility to perceive pertinent detail in objects In pictorial or graphicmaterial.

Aptitude Q Clerical PerceptionAbility to perceive pertinent detail in verbal or ta:Jular material.

Aptitude K Motor CoordinationAbility to coordinate eyes and hands or fingers rapidly and accu-rately in making precise movements with speed..

161

I 00

155

150

145

110

135

130

125

120

115

110

105

100

115

110

85

so

75

70

55

50

45

Air Conditioning, Refrigeration and Appliance Repair

V N S P QInt, Verbal Num. Spatial Form P. Cler'eal Motor

107

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCE REPAIR

Per-centile G V N S P Q K

Per-centile

999897911

i5

132127-131

. .

126122-12.5

129

120-128119

116-118115

134

133

132

124-131121-123

153151-152

.150140-149133-139

1441 4 1-143

140139138

148143-147

:42140-141

155150-154

149138-148133-137

9998979695

194

;i39291

90

121

120

119

112 -114

111

120119

118. .

117

137134-136

133131-132

..

137

136

135

139

13)129-137

128

.

132..

129-131128

94939291

90

8988878685

11811.0

109

. .

11611.5

130

125. -.1 29

. .

132-134131

130129

126-127125

123-124..

122

125-127124

122-123121

. .

8988.87

8685

8483828180

11 7 108

107

114

..

128

127

1.2.6

125

120 -121 120

84&3

8281

80

7978777675

116115

114

106

/05

1.0.4

113

112111

110

124..

124

123

119 119118

116 -117

115

7978

6670

75

74737271

70

. .

113112.1 1 1

. .

103

102

109

1'04

..

..121123

122

121

118116-117

115

114

113

74

73

7271

70

6968676605

110 101

107 120

1201 18-119

117112

69686777

65

64636261

CA

109

100

9998

106

105

118-119

116115114

III111

109 -110

108

64

6.3

6261

00

5958575655 107

97 104

103

102

117113

113 107

106

5958

57

5655

54535251

50 106

96

ii 101

115 -116

112 112

111

105

104103102

54535251

50

108

)

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCE REPAIR(Continued)

cent& G Y N S P Qer-Per -'

K cent&

4948 1054746 10445 101-103

94

114

111-.113

111

110

110109

1.08

4948474645

444342 1004140

93 100

99

109108

1.07

14144434241

4039383736 6435

92

9198

110107

106

105.. 166

3938373635

34333231 .

30 98

90

89 97

108-109107

105-106

106

105104

.

102-103

99

48

97

34333231

3029 ..28 9727 9926 9525

ii OC

95

104. .

102-103

101

104. .

..103

101100..

44

9695949392

292827,2625

2423 oi222120

ii

ii

oi 98-.100

9.7

95-96

102

100.-10199

..

98

91

0089

24232221

2019 9318171615

85

84

93

44

92-.93

.

96 -98

95

47

88

19

18

17

10

15

14 9213 ..12 9111 9010 . .

83

ii

92

91

44

41

89 -90

ai

90

87 14

13

1211

10.

9 8987 ii6 875 86

8. -1

80

86-89858483

88

79 -87

93

-..9291

95

oi

.

92-93

86..

81-858079

987

6

5

4 71-853 702 68-691 67

75-7974

71-7370

78-8277

58-7657

78

68--7765

87-9086

85

9190

88-8987

63-7862

59-6158

4

3

21

M..58M..104.158D -12.88

N.4695.93

SD-11.72

N -56M-102.1480 -12.90

N-56M-111.77SD- 17.51

N.-56M..112.23SD -14.40

N-50M..110.7080 ..13.82

N.,513M- 104.8080 -18.27

109

1611

155

150

141

1 UI

135

130

315

1;10

115

110

105

100

01

!HI

N:i

so

75

0

05

(A)

55

so

.15

Aircraft Mechanics

Verba1 Nitta. Sp3 1'. (:Ivrica1

110

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational Technical Schools

AIRCRAFT MECHANICS_Per-

centile G V 1

_ .

S P Q KPer-

cernile99 135-138 123-133 129-134 153-156 150-156 135-1 5 2 150.163 9998 131-134 121-122 12S 151-152 147-149 149-108 98117 130 110-120 120-127 159 140 134 141 -148 9790 129 115 124-125 148-149 i 4,1i-145 . . 140 96115 127-128 . . 123 147 129-1 3 3 13 7-139

.._.....95..

122 144-146 14394 12 6 117 128 130 9493 .. .. 127 9392 12.5 121 143 142 . . 135 9291 1111 140-141 126 134 9190 .. 115 1211 141-142 139 . . 9089 124 119 140 130.133 8988 112-114 138-139 138 120-129 8887 I 1 1 137 12.1 -125 8786 123 . . 1.1S 1.37 125 122-123 8685 II 0 _ 136 .. 121 858 4 124 120 8483 122 109 134-136 135 123 119 8382 117 133 134 8281 121 131 -132 118 8180 . . .. 122 .. 8079 133 121 117 7978 1.20 1.16 110 7877 132 120 .. 7776

115 7675 108 130 131 114 7574 115 7473 119 1.3.0 7372 119 113 7271 1.07 129

. 7170 114. .. 112 7069 196 1 1 2-113 128-129 128 6968 118

GS67 105 11.1 127 118 111 676665 1.20 110 6656

64 - 117 104 110 116-1 1 7 109 64(53 127 (1362 116108 6261 125 61

6(1 10360

59 115 309 .. 115 107 5958 124 5857 123 5756 114 125 -126 122 1.06 505555

54 113 102 108 121 105 5453 120 5352 119 104 5251 107 114 . 5150 112 118 10.3 50

111

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational Technical Schools

AIRCRAFT MECHANICS(Continued)

Per-centile G V N S P Q

Per-H centile

49484740 11:1

45

101 . 106

105

194

124117 113

102

1(11

4948474645

4443424 1 11040

100 103121-123

116112

1 1 1

110

1009998

96-97

444342414(1

39383736 10935

99

102

101 120

115

114109

.

95.

94

3938373635

34 10833 107323130 106

98

97

96

100

118-119

117

113..

112111110

108

..

oi.

92

3433323130

292827 105

2625

9599

115-116109

10S

107

106105

91

it89

3928272625

24 1042322 1032120 102

94 6e7

114

..111-113

110

107

106

104..

102-103101

87-88..

.

86..

2423222120

19I8 1011716 99 -10015 98

9391-92

96

95

103:109107..

105-106

05

104103

101-102

100

8584

81-83

80

1918171615

1413 .

12 971110 ..

90

89

94

93

02

102-104

101

100

99

99

98

79.

77-78

7675

1413121110

9 9687 94-956 935 92

..8887

6

91

90

89

98 -100

9795 -96

98979695

97

95-96

7473

72

98765

4 913 88-902 871 86

85848382

85.8878-84

7775.76

9492-9378-91

93-949291

76-90

92-949190

81-89

7170

67-6960-66

-4321

N 103M- 111.52SD=10.88

N=I03M=101.41SD= 9.01

N -103M =105.92SD-11.48

14 -, 103M- 122.26BD= 14.80

N=103M =119.20SD-15.40

N =103M =111.55SD = 11.49

N=103M- 102.71SD =20.46

112

A

P

1

1)

S

0Ii

S

1.15

160

155

1511

1.11

110

135

130

125

120

1 II

110

105

100

01

lw

85

so

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

Agri-Technology

Verbal N11131. Spatial

113

FOII P. Clerical Mc for

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

AGRI-TECHNOLOGY

Per-centile G Y N S P 0 K

Per-crnlile

9995979695

135-137134

132-133

130-131

123-129121-122119-120

118116-117

111-143140

136-139135134

144-153143

138 -142

137

147-163115-146139-141

138

137

136-146135

133-134132

130-131

132-142124-131122-123

121

99OS

970695

9493929190

..129

128125-127

115112-114

I 1 I

109-110

133127-132124 -126

..123

I33.136131-132

.

130

136135134133

129126-128

125

120119I ISI17

115-116

049302111

39

8988878685

124

123119-122

118

1118

122

121

128 -129

127

132

131

130

124

123122

IN

113

312

89888786

85

54838281

80

8483828180

117

107

106

119:120118

1 I 7

125.126

.

129128

.

127

121120

.311

110

7978777675

116

105

104

116

115 126

119160

79

78

77

71;

75

7473.727170

115

li 4

113

103114

113

124 125.

124

123

118

11-117

108107

1911

74

7:3

7271

70

6968676665

112

111

102

191 11.2 121-123

122

121

119-120114

105

. 104

6368

07

611

05

6463626160

110

100

99

111

110

121)

118

117115-116

103

102

64636261

60

5958575655

109

98

109

108

110-119

117

11.4

113

113101

100

5955.

575655

5453525150

108

10797

107

11i-116

114 .

111-113

112112

111

99

Oa

97

54535251

50

114

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

AGRI-TECHNOLOGY(Continued)

Per-centile G V

Per-K cenlile

4948 109474645 105

10.0

1.10

111

1.1.0

110999.5.

64

4948474645

44434241

40 104

105104

108 -109

109108

107

109 93.

92

44434241

40

39383736 10335

103107

105 -106

106

105

fo's

107

61

3938373635

34 1023332 101

3130

94

102101

104

102 -103

104..103102

10E1

. 1059089

88.

3423

31

30

292827 1002625

6 100

9.9.

101

61

100

104

102:103

8.7

2928272625

242322 ..21 9920

92

91

68

9.7.

98-10099

98

101 8685

84

24232221

201918 ..17 981615

90

86 96

95

6796-97

95

94

14083

1918171615

14 971312 9.6.

II 94-9510 93

88

86-8785

83-84

94

..

95-9694

91-9389-90

88

9392

61

90

66

98ii

86

14

13

12

II

10

9 928 917 9065 86

828180..

93..

9291

88-90

85-8784

82-8381

898887

85-86

67

94 -9693

7977-78

76..75

98 r7

65

43 ii

2 871 71-86

797877

66-76

86-8784-8582-8380-81

78-8075-7771-74

8482-83

81

77-80

9291

9075-89

74

67-7363-6653-92

4321

N =115M=107.71SD = 11.90

N=11511=97.54

BD= 10.31

N=115M=107.74SD = 12.60

N=11551=11177SD= 1140

N =115M=111.95SD 16.53

N=115M-= 110.05SD= 11.24

N =115M= 97.07SD=14.93

115

16.5

160

155

150

115

I 10

135

130

125

120

115

110

105

10))

"5

65

ti)

7.5

70

(i3

60

55

50

'5

Architectural Drafting

L t. VerbalN

Nam.S

Spatial

116

P QForm P. Clerical Motor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING

Per-cenlile G V N S P Q K

Per-cenlile

9993979695

136135134

132-133131

135122-134

121

118-120117

132..

126-131125

153148-152

178171-177

370162-169

161

178

145-177141

136.143

142137-141

136133-135

132

999$97

96

95

9493

112

91

_ 90

130129

127-128124-126

..

116..

115

124123122121120

147

144 -146

153-160157

148-159

147

135

64

123-131124

122-123121120

919392

91

99

8988878085

123

122

112-114

13.1

109 -110

119

118

143

141 -142

149145144143142

130-133

'9129

119HS

116-117115114

89

8887

8689

8483

8281

80121

108107

106

1171.40

141

140139

138

125-328

124

113

112

84

8382

8180

79787776

75

120

119

105

116

115

113 -114

138 -339

137137

123

..

Ill

7978

7776

7473

7271

70

118

116 -117

115104

112

111

134-136

133

13)1

135134

122

121

120

110

74

73

72

71

70

6968676665

1113

131:132 133

132

119

109

106-108

09686766

65

6463626160

114

113

103

102109

130131

130

118

116-317 105

64

636261

60

5958575655

112101

108

128 -129- ..

129

128

115 ..103-104

102

5958575655

5453525150

111 100 107

106

127.. 127

126

114101

54

535251

50

117

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesla Area Vocational-Technical Schools

ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING(Continued)

Percentke G V N

I))5

S

125-126

1.24

P QPer-

K centile

19

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

6)

109

99

98

97

96

05

125

..

124

113

..

III)

99

98

07

49

48

47

46

45

164

122-123

..

112

111

110

66

44

43

42

41.

4039

35

:37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

108

11)3 121

10990

39

38

3736

35

11)7 94

..

102

121-123

126

120

119

105 ..

92-94

34

3.3

32

31

30

29

23

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

II

10

1(1(1

104-105

11E3

..

102

..

..

.

101

. 166

93

101

100 I18 -119

118

117

107

105-106

1(14

102-.103

1.04

91

29

28

27

26

25

92

91

.

90

SO

88

87

..

09

..

97-98

96

117

115-116

115-116

114

109-113

108

..

66

..

23

22

21

20

10

IS

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

95

94

93114

..

107

106

105

100

66

89

58

02

87-91

86

. .

85

111-113

110

11)4

98

87

86

9

8

7

6

5

.

97-90

66..

86

..

84

..

108-109

107

105-106

I04

103

102

101

99-100

98

. 97

96

..

95

94

83-85

..

82

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

95

94

90-93

89

83-85

82

79-81

78

8382

75-81

74

102-103

101

05-100

94

96-97

95

85-94

84

63

83-92

82

81

80

71-79

70

4

3

2

1

N =53M=111.34SD= 10.21

N=53NI= 99.47SD= 10..18

N =53M=105.43SD=12.48

11 =53M=126.53SD= 12.03

N=53M =12021SD=18.22

N =53M=114.32SD= 15.40

11 =5311=101.40SD = 14.51

118

/

155

150

1.15

110

115

125

120

115

Ili]

105

!NI

Si

75

(15

(U)

55

50

15

Automotives

S ()Nun!. SpatEil Fir ical ',tutor

119

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

AUTOMOTIVES

Per-centile G V N S P 0 K

Per-centile

99OS

979695

131-139132-133

131129 -131)127-128

122-129119-121

118I 1 i

115-116

135-142131-134120-130

1281211-127

151-160118-150

147141-146

156-172151-155146-150143-145

142

139-157136-138

135134133

141-159137-110131-136127-130125-126

999S979695

94939291

90

126125124

. .

123

112-114. .

1 1 1

110

124-125123122121120

143141 -142

140138-139

141140

138-139137136

131-132129-130

128126-127

123-124121-122

120

9493929190

8988878685

122121120119

11)9

.

108

119118

. .

117116

137

134.-.136

135134

133

125

124

123

118-119

117116115

8988878685

8483828180

118

117

16711.5

114

133

134-.132

132

131

..130

122

121

114

113

112

8483828180

7978777675

116

1.1.5

114

106

1.05

113

112

130

128 -129

129128

42.7

120

440

111

110

7978777675

74737271

70

113

104

103In

127

1.26

125 118

116 -117

109

108

107

7473727170

6968676665

112

111

102

101

110

109125 -126

124

123115

114

106

105104

6968676665

6463626160

110

109

100 108

107124

122

121120 113

103

102

6463626160

5958575655

108

99106

105 121 -123

119

1.16

117 112101

5958575655

5453525150

107

98

ii104

120116

115

111

110100

5453525150

120

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Techni-^1 Schools

AUTOMOTIVES(Continued)

Per-centile G V N S P Q K

Per-centile

494847-16

45

106

i..,

95

103

102118-119

..114113

.

109

66

98

4948474645

4443424140

105

104101

1.00

117

115-.116

112

111

1.10

108

67

4443

4241

40

3938373635

103

1.02

9366

1.1.4

109

..108

107106

105

96.

95.

64

3938373635

34333231

30

101

160

92

61

98

97

111-113

110

107

100

105

1.04

.

93

92

61

34333231

30

2928272025

.

99

68

90

89.

96

95

108 -109

107

104

103

102-103101

90

89

2928272625

24232221

20

97

6688

9493

105-106

1.64

102-103

102101

100

..

100

99

8887

86

2423222120

19

18171615

95

9493..

87

89

8.5

92

9.1.

90

..

101

98 -100

9998

9790

98

9.7.

8584

83

19

18

17

10

15

1413

1211

10

92

6190

8.4

8382

8988

8785-86

67

95-9694

92-93

959493

N-9290

9.6

95

94

82..8180

1413

1211

10

98765

89..

874886

84-85

81

80

79

83-8482

80-8179

91

86-60

8884-87

..

8887

85-86

92-9391

89-90

79787776

74-75

98765

4321

82-8379-8177-7858-76

7870-77

7508 -74

77-7875-7673-7453-72

82-8379-8175-7861-74

8481-8370-8053-75

8887

84-8679-83

70-7368-6964-6729-63

4321

N=495M=106.05SD= 12.84

N=495M= 96.60SD =10.99

N=405M=103.140=13.69

N=495M=117.29SD =17.34

121.

N=495M=114.61SD = 17.92

N=495M=110.15SD= 12.32

N = 495= 99.24

SD-16.09

It

1(0

155

150

115

10

1:35

1,30

125

120

115

110

105

100

55

Sti

31 I

75

(35

15

Diesel Mechanics

351.1,t1 \ 010.

122

IL"(1

I'm ( :l ie,i1

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

DIESEL MECHANICS

Per-centile G V N S P 0 K

Per-centile

99 1:31-132 120-121 151-15:3 152 136-1:39 129-130 9998 130 132 ISO .. 135 128 9897 129 119 .. 148-149 151 127 9796 128 118 129-131 144 -1 -17 144-150 134 121-126 9695 127 .. 128 143 143 .. 95

94 117 127 138-142 142 132-13:3 949.3 126 116 126 141 127-131 120 9392 .. .. .. 126 .. 9291 125 115 125 137 140 122-125 118-110 9190 110-114 139 121 114-117 90

89 124 124 13S 120 .. 89SS 123 12:3 137 113 8887 .. 13.i-.1:36 119 .. 8786 121-122 109 120-122 136 110-11.: 8685 R5

84 110 1:33 135 . 8483 120 .. .. 134 6.8 100 8382 .. 118 .. 133 .. 82RI 107-108 116-117 131-132 .. 108 81

...80 1.1.9 114-115 .. 131-132 116.-.117 .. 80

79 306 .. 107 7978 118 130 136 .. 7877 105 113 106 7776 105 7675 11.7 .. 129 102-104 75

74 112 128-129 115 .. 747:3 . 104 .. . 7372 116 111 128 101 7271 114-115 127 7370 113 103 127 126 98 -100 70

69 . . 110 69OS 11.4 6867 112 125 6.i 6766 6665 102 109 125 -126 1.13 94-96 65

64 6463 93 6362 Ill 108 124 6261 10) 112 92 6161) 60

59 107 1 1 1 5958 124 5857 10.0 122-123 01 5756 110 106 121 110 5655 55

154 99 120 90 54

3 53 .. 53i 52 109 119 52

51 123 -123 118 109 51E 50 117 50

I

1

f,

t:

123

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

DIESEL MECHANICS(Continued)

Per-

centile G V N S P Q KPer-

cenlile

4948474645

108

105-107

98

105

120

113-116

112

108

89

88

49

48474645

44434241

40

39

38

7

10

35

104

. .

9796..

104

. .

117-119115-116

111

..110109108 107

97

8.6.

4443

4241

40

103

95

6:1

1.0..3 114

1111:113

107

106105

85

84

3938373035

343;3

3231

301.02

. . 63

102100-101

99

104

103

106

10583

34333231

30

2925272625

24

232221

20

. .

100-101..99

92

9897

9. a

110102

104 8:2

2928272625

98

97 91

65

..

108-109105-107

101

97 -100

..102-103

101

24232221

20

19

18

1716

15

9695

94

9094

104

102 -103

96100

99

81

80

19

1817

16

14

13

12

11

10

63

888780

85

93

62

91

101

68100

94

93

97-98

95 -96

797877

14

13

12

11

10

9

87

65

. .

9290-9188-89

87

84

682..

90

78 -89

7776

97

95-9694

9291

89-90

6

94

939291

70..

74-757372

987

65

4321

84-8682-83

.

81

79-8178

.

74-77

75

7.4

71-73

81-9379-80

78

87

86

908988

81-87

70-7167-69

6660-65

43

21

_N=69

M=107.57SD=12.03

N=69M = 98.42SD= 10.24

N=69M=105.04SD-13.58

N =69M=118.42SD= 15.88

124

N=69M=115.64SD-17.73

N-69M =109.38SD=11.13

N=69M= 92.112SD= 15.30

165

1641

15:5

150

111

110

115

I' 110

1125

120

I) 115

110

105

0 100

It95

S

53

Electronics

1; 1' 0Spatial For 11 P. Clerical Nlotlir

125

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

ELECTRONIC.

Per-centile G V N 5 P 0 K

Per-centile

99

98

97

96

95

140-143

136.139

1,7,5

134

128-131

120 -127

124-125

123

122

137-153

136

135

134

133

153-156

151-152

148-150

147

14.4:146

..

143

11)0 -105

157-159

154-156

149-153

146-118

140-155

137-139

130

135

134

141-149

140

137-139

132-130

130-131

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

133

..

132

..

131

..

121

120

132

131

130

..

129

145

143-144

142

141

140

..

133

132

..

131

128-129

125-127

12 -1

123

122

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

..

130

129

119

118

117

128

127

126

141-142

110

139

138

137

136

130

129

..

127-128

126

121

120

119

118

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

128

127

110

115

125

124

123

138 -139

137

135

134

125

124

123

117

116

84

8382

81

8(1

79

78

77

76

75

126

126

123-124

112-114

111

..

122

..

121

120

..

131-136

133131-132

..

133

131-132

130 122

115

114

. .

113

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

122

121

110

119

118

130

129

12.8

121

120

112

1.11

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

126

119

109 117

116

128-129

127

127

126

125

119

118

110

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

118

117

108

115

114

125 -126

124

123

122

116-117

115

109

103

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

116 107

106

113

112

11

120

107

106

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

115 105 111

110

124

119

118

114 105

104

103

54

53

52

51

50

126

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

ELECTRONICS(Continued)

,..

Per-

centile

49

G V N S P

117

Q

Per-

1( cent lie

49

4i 114 104 113 45

47 102 4746 109 121-123 116 4t(

45 45

44 113 103 115 101 44

43 112 41

42 108 120 114 42

41 41

HI 112 III 100 40

39 102 113 393S 107 112 99 38

37 111 118-119 .. 37

36 III 1111 OS 36

31 110 106 35

31 . 101 97 34

33 109 110 96 3332 109 94-95 92

11 im 31

30.

100 105 117 109 30

29 . 105 93 2925 107 107 108 . 28

27 92 2726 99 104 1011 26

25 106 105 91 25

24 .. 115-116 89-90 24

23 98 10.4 107 88 21

22 105 103 106 2221 114 19.3 R787 21

. 6'7 . 20

19 104 101-102 105 86 19

I8 .. 96 100 111-113 102 85 18

17 103 99 S4 17

16 95 110 1110-101 83 16

15 OS 99 82 15

14 . 94 108-199 98 104 .. 14

13 102 97 89-81 13

12 .. 93 6'7 102-103 79 12

11 92 96 107 95-96 101 73 11

10 101 91 .. 94 Ion 76-77 10

9 95 .. 93 75 98 100 60 94 104-106 92 66 8

7 99 102-103 91 74 7

6 89 6 101 90 97-98 .. 11

5 97-9S 83 92 97-100 89 95-96 69-73 5

4 96 87 91 95-96 88 94 68 4

3 95 86 90 94 86-87 91-93 62-67 3

2 94 85 89 88-93 84-85 88-90 51-61 2

1 91-93 82-84 78-88 78-87 71-83 81-87 37-50 1

N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202M = 114.93 M=105.10 M=111.00 M=121.22 M=117.92 M = 114.24 M=101.450=11.213 SD=10.20 SD= 12.46 SD= 14.43 SD= 17.71 SD= 11.71 18.77

127

Carpentry

128

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

CARPENTRY

Per-

centile G V 0 KPer-

cenlile

9908979695

132-136128-131

127125-126

..

119-121113117116115

133-134131-132128-130

127125-126

150-153147-149144-146

143

145-166142-144140-141

139

132-146129-131

128127126

128-134124-127121-123

..120

9998579695

94939291

90

123-124

122

110-114109

108107

124123122121

. .

141-142

140

138:139

138137

135-136133-134

125124

123

. .

119

118

117116

949:21

91

90

8988878685

121

.

120119

106

120

119137

134 -136

132131

130

122121

120

115

114

113

8988878685

84838281

80

118

117

1.65

164

1 1 S

117132

131 :162

129128

127 119

112111

110

109

84838281

80

7978777675

116

115

103

102

116

115 130

126

125118

116 -117

108

107

7978777675

74

737271

70 11.4

101

114

113

128-129124123

132

115106..

105104

74737271

70

6968676665

113

100

99

112

111

127

131

120114

163.

102

6968676665

6463626160

112

111 98

110125-126 119

118113

112111 -101

6463626160

5958575655

110

109

97

109

108

124117

116

110

..

5958575655

54535251

50 108

96107

121-123 115109

99-10098..

5453525150

129

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

CARPENTRY(Continued)

Per-centile G Y iV S P Q

Per-X cenlile

494847 107

4045

14 1004342 10541

40

39 10438373635

i-i 103333231 10230 101

95

94

93. .

92. .

91

90

106

105

104

103

102

I'm

109

99

120

118-110

117

115-.110

114

111-113

114

113

112

...

111

110..

109

108

100-.107

1115

.

101

102-103

101

100

97

.

91;

95

94

..

93

49

4847411

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38373635

198

107

106105

92

91

89-90

34333231

30

292827 1.09

2625

89

88

98

97110

90

SS

87

2928272625

2423 992221

20 98.

87

95

96

..

108-.109

107

104

103

..6

86

85

24232221

20

19 9718 961716

15 95

858483

95. .

949392

105 -lor,

104

102

10-1

199

9.

84

83

82

19

18

17

16

15

1413 911211

10 93

82

91

91

90

898

102-103101

..98-100

97

09

98. .

97

96

9594

79 -81

7876-77

14

13

12

11 .-

10

98 627 916 89-905 87-88

80

78-7977

86-988584

82-8381

..95-96

9492-93

91

9695

93-9492

69291

757473

71-7269-70

987

65

4 85-863 81-842 74-801 65-73

75-7673-74

7270-71

76-8074-7563-7359-67

89-9088

79-8774-78

88-9184 -8780-8395-79

8-9085-8771-84

6867

63-6620-62

4

3

2

1

N..181M=107.02SD..11.95

N..181M... 94.95SD=10.59

N=181M=105.12SD..13.56

N=181M-119.29SD=15.51

N..181M=114.52SD=14.70

N=1815.1=108.13SD=11.37

N...181M= 96.56SD=15.70

130

105

100

153

151)

1.15

1.10

135

130

123

120

113

110

1(13

(03

75

70

(is

(00)

55

15

Farm Equipment Mechanics

C N S

Verbal Num. Spatial For o 1'.

131

Clerical

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICS

Per-

centile G V KPer-

centile

99

98

97

96

95

135-136

134

133

128-132

127

116-119

115

111-114

110

135-147

134

131-133

130

151-153

150

147-149

144-146

157-160

156

150-155

149

139-166

138

133-137

132

123-132

122

121

120

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

124-126

. .

123

122

109

..

107-108

106

105

127-129

126

..

125

143

141-142

140

..

138-139

144-148

143

142

137-141

131

129-130

127-128

126

125 '

119

118

116-117

115

114

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

121

120

119

..

124

123

..

122

137

134-136

133

135-136

134

133

124

123

113

..

112

111

110

89.

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

118

117

104

121

120

119

131 -132

..

132

130-131

129

120-122

119

109

108

107

106

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

116

115

103

118

116-117

..

115

114

130

128-129

128

127

126

118

115-117

105

164

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

114

102

118

127,

125

124

114

103

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

113

112

101

112

111

110 125 -126

123

118

102 69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

111 124

122

120-121 112

101 64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

110

100

109 121 -123 119

118

111

110

100

99

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

109

108

99

98

108

107

120

118 -119

117

116 109

98

.

97

54

53

52

51

50

132

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technkal Schools

FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICS(Continued)

Per-centile G V N S P 0

Per-K centile

49 107

48

47

46 166

45

97

106

117

115-116

115

114

108

96

9,5

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40 105

96

95

105

104

114

111 -113

110

113 107

169

94 44

43

42

41

40

39

3837

36 16.4

.35

Oi 103 108 -109 112

105

93 3938

37

36

35

34

33 103

32

31 102

30

93 102

101

167

111

108-110

107

104

102 -103

..

92

91

88-90

34

33

32

31

30

29 101

28

27 100

26

25

92

91

100

6 105 -106

1031106

102

101

87

29

28

27

26

25

24

23 99

2221

20

90

98

104

102-103

101

99 -100

68

100

if,

85

24

23

22

21

20

19 98

18 ..

17 96-97

16 95

15 94

88

87

97

96

101

95-100

94

97

96

95

66

84

83

19

18

17

16

15

14

13 612 9211 91

10

88

95

6-94

62

92-93

91

6.4

oi

98

67

6

81

14

13

12

11

10

98 90

7

6

5 89

83 -85

82

90-91

84 -89

83

81-90

85-88

92

96

94-95

6

679

78

9

8

7

6

5

4

3 88

2 871 81-86

81

80

76-79

82

..

72-81

8479-83

78

71-77

91

87-90

86

82-85

91-92

90

88-89

77

73-76

72

55-71

4

3

2

1

N=72M=107.49SD=11.53

N=72M= 96.88SD= 8.55

N=72M =107.31SD=13.22

N=72M =115.81SD= 17.79

N=72M=115.86SD= 17.08

N=72M=109.94SD=12.08

N=72M= 96.40SD = 13.21

133

161

155

1 17)

11)

111.

)15

St

In i

Fluid Power Technology

l'01))1 Simi. tip; (fit!

134

(:1,.K

\I tl.r

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY

l'er-

centile G

113

112

111

134-110

133

130-132

129

127-12s

126

125

121

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

V

123

118-122

117

110

115

112-114

111

110

169

168

107

106

105

104

103

102118-119

N

110

142-145

141

110

139

138

137

136

133-135

132

S

143

111-142

110

138-139

137

134-136

P

100

1411-159

115

143-141

142

137-111

136

135

134

133

132

131

13)1

129

128

0

152

151

137-1511

130

135

131

133

130-132

129

12s

127

126

125

121

123

122

121

120

119

118

K

140

163-115

132

131

130

129

I2S

127

120

121-125

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

.113

112

III

110

.

109

108

107

106

Per-

centile

99

98

97

90

95

91

93

92

91

11)

89

$S

8786

85

84

83

82

81

50

79

7;

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

6867

611

65

64

63

62

01

00

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

99

98

97

90

95

94

93

92

91

90

S9

Ss

ST

811

85

84

83

82

Si

80

79

78

77

70

75

74

73

72

71

70

129-131

128

.

127

126

125

(24

123

133

131-132

130

128-129

127

125-120

127

1211

125

124

123.

..

122

..

122

..

12. 1

121

120

119

118

09

6s

67

06

65

64

03

02

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

50

126

1'16

..

118

117

1111

124

121-123

120

118-119

117

110

1'15

114

116-117

115..

..

6'4

113

112

Ill135

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY(Continued)

Per-

centile G V N S P Q KPer-

cenlile

4948474645

115113-114

101

115

..11.1

113112

1.17

. .

115.-.116

1.1.0 113105

4948474045

44434241

40

44434241

.10

112

11.1

100

99109 1.1.2

104

103

3938

373635

110 OS

95 -97II]

114

111 -113 108

107

111

110

102

101

3938

373635

34333231

30

109

108110 110

106 109

10810099

3433323130

2928272625

107

1.66

94

..

109

108-109

105

104103

107

98

97

2928272625

24232221

20

105

104

939291

108

107

106107

102

106

105

101 -104

96

95

64

24232221

20

19181716

15

103

102

90105104

103..

105-106104

101

98-100

97100

93

9291

19

1817

1615

14

13

1211

10

99-101

68

891.62

, .

101

102-103

101

96

95

99

9.8

90

89

87-88

14

13

1211

10

98

7

65

97

oo

8685

89

97-.10096

94-9593

..98-100

97

949392

97

9692-95

86

83-8582

98765

432

1

91-9590

86-8985

81-8380

92.

83-9182

95-9694

85-9384

87-9186

85

91

91)

79-8178

75-7774

4

321

N=51M=114.51SD =12.41

N=51M=100.49SD= 9.63

N =51M=116.33SD= 13.24

N=51M=119.04SD =14.27

136

N=51M=113.86SD= 15.53

N=51M=115.31SD=11.51

N=51M=107.20SD = 15.73

AT

S11

S

16.5160

155150

145/40

135130

I 25120

115110

105101)

9590

8580

7570

6560

5550

45

Machine

Shop

IS

ILL

Spatial

137

P Q ti

Form

Clerical

Motor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

MACHINE SHOP

Per

centile 6 V N S P Q KPer-

centile

99

98

97

90

95

131-141

130

129

127-128

126

123-125

119-122

118

117

115-110

136-145

132-135

130-131

129

128

148-153

..

147

144-146

143

153-165

148-152

145-147

143-144

1.12

139-143

137-138

135-136

132-134

129-131

135-138

129-134

128

124-127

121-123

99

98

97

90

95

91

93

92

91

90

125

..

124

123

122

112-114

110-111

109

126-127

125

138-142

137

141

140

139

138

128

12(1 -127

125

124

120

..

119

118

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

121

1.2.0

16's

1.0.7

124

123

..

122

..

134.-436

..

136-137

135

134

133

132

123

..

122

121

..

117

116

..

115

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

119

148 1.06

121

120

119

133

131.-132

131

130

129

128

120

119

114

113

112

84

83

82

81

SO

79

78

77

76

75

117

..

116

115

165

118

14.7

130

127

12(1

1.18

111

..

110

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

114 16.4

163

116

128:129

127

125

124

116-117

115

109

.

108

107

106

74

73

72

71

70

09

68

67

66

65

113

112

162

115

11.4

125-126

123

114 105

104

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

111

101

100

113

124

122

121

119-120

118

113

103

102

101

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

1,9

55

110

66

6

111

110

109

..

121-123

..

117

..

112

111

..

110

66

66

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

109

97

108

107

1.26

118 -119

116

115 109

98

97

54

53

52

51

50

138

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

MACHINE SHOP(Continued)

Per-centile G V N S P 0 H

Per-centile

4948474645

107 66

95

106

105

117

115-'116

114113

108

96

.

64

4948474645

4443424140

106

64 10.1

1031.14

112

111 107

66

4443424140

3938373635

105

1.64

9310-2

101111 -113 110

108 -109

106

105

92

91

3938373635

3433323130

103

62

9.1.

ido

66

110

107

1.06

104

90

3433323130

292827262.5

102

101

10066

6897 108-109

107

105

104103

102-103101

89

.

88

2928272625

2423222120

66

.9' 8 89

96

95105 -106

104

102

101

10099

100

99

.

87

..

24232221

201918171615

9796

9587

94

68

102-103

101

98

97

9698

86

85

84..

1918171615

14

13

1211

10

94939291

86

8584

9291

9089

98-100

9795-96

.

95

9493

97

9694-95

8382

79-8177-78

14131211

10

98765

9089

8886-87

8381-82

80

78 -79

8886-87

8583-84

82

94

92-93

61

9290-91

8987-8882-86

9391-92

90

7675

74

98765

4321

4321

84-8583

73-82

7775-7673-7470-72

77-8176

63-75

89-9081-8868-80

8179-80

7860-77

89

88.

81-87

69-7368

47-6743-46

N =169M=I07.47SD= 11.79

N=166M= 96.78SD=10.54

N =186M=106.63SD =14.08

N=166M=117.39SD= 15.95

139

N=166M=114.34SD=17.49

N=166M=109.42SD= 11.85

N=166M= 97.42SD=16.47

163

160

135

150

1 IS

1.10

13.5

130

325

120

115

110

105

101)

05

00

(5

Sp

75

(55

(50

55

50

15

Mechanical Drafting and Design

In. Nom. Spoilt

140

Qvor ciricai Motor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGN

Per-.centile G V N S P Q K

Per-cenlile

9998979695

140138-139136-137133-135

132

126-137124-125120-123118-110

139-140135-138

134133

160-169154-159

153151-152

..

161-175157 -100151-156150-153148 -149

141-149142-143

..141

1:39-140

114-159111 -113137 -140135-130133-134

9998979695

94939291

90

131

15.0

117

116

132131130129

127-128

150

148-149

147..

146..

115

137-138136135

133 -131

132

132130-13112S-129

127125-126

9493929190

8988878685

129

12.8

127

115112-114

1.1.1

126..

125

147

1444:14C

144143142141140

130-131120128..

127

124123122121..

8988878685

84838281

80

126

125

110

109

..121..

123122

143

141.-142139

138

126

125

120

119118

8483828180

7978777675

121

123

121

12.6

140

138-139

137

136

124

123..

117

1.10

7978777675

74737271

70

122

12.1

108

107

119

118

137

134-136

135

. .

134133

..122..

121..

115114113..

112

7473727170

6968676665

120

1.66

117 133132

131

120..

119

111

110

6968676665

5163626160

119

118 105

116

115

1311:132

130

130

129

100108

107

64636201

60

5958575655

117

116

104114

128 -129

128127

126

118

116-117

106

105

104

5958575655

5453525150

115103

113

112127

125

12.4123

115

114

103

102

5453525150

141

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGN(Continued)

Per-

cenlae G V iV S P

49

48

47

46

45

114

113

162 Ill

66

125-126 122

121

120

119

44

43

42

41

0

101

160109 124

1'18

1'1

39

38

37

36

35

Ill 90

165

107

116

115

114

34

33

32

31

30

110

98

67

166

1.05

121-123

126

113

6'2.

29

28

27

26

25

109

96

95

164

163

113:119

117

Ill

6024

23

22

21

20

108

101

106

64

oi

102 116:116

160

16S

107

19

18

17

16

15

105

621

101

166

114

111 -113

106

105

14

13

12

11

10

104

103

..

..

91

90

89

99

98

110

104

103

9

8

7

6

5

102

101

100

99

97-98

94-06

93

85-92

88

87

..

86

-.

84-85

80-83

78-79

74-77

97

96

95

94

03

91-92

..

90

57-89

103- 109

107

..

105-106

104

101-103

81-100

101-102

100

99

98

97

43

2

1

94-06

90-93

85-89

71-84

Per.

0 R centile

49

48

47

46

101 45

113 44

43

42

41

40

.. 100 39

112 38

6 37

111 36

110 93 35

97 34

96 33

160 32

95 31

30

108 29

94 28

27

107 6 26

25

106 92 24

91 23

105 22

90 21

20

104 89 19

18

102 :103 88 17

S7 16

101 .. . 15

. 14

86 13

1011 84-85 12

09 83 11

10

98 82_

9

S

97 7..

96

04-95

78-81 6

75-77

74 4

93 72-73 3

g--N70-71 2

41-69 1

N=251 N=251 14=251 14=251 N=251 N=251 N =251M=115.16 M= 101.88 M=111.80 M=127.50 M= 122.55 M= 114.90 M=103.59SD= 10.46 SD= 10.22 SD= 12.16 SD= 14.32 SD = 17.34 SD= 12.57 SD =17.54

142

155

Plumbing and Sheet Metal

1:10

125

12(i1'

115I)

110

105(.

CHI

115

75

C);l

55

5()

45

\e Now.( )

Sp:01111 1.5,1 ii I. ON iii

143

KMotor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

PLUMBING AND SHEET METAL

Per.centile G V N S P Q K

Per-

cenlile

99

98

07

96

95

124

120-123

119

118

115

112-114

..

111

120

125

147

144-146

143

154

150-153

149

145-148

135

134

133

126-132

146

141-145

140

125-139

..

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

117

11.6

100-110

108

124

123

120-122

119

118

141-142

140

138-139

144

143

142

125

1.24

124

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

115

107

106

117

116

115

114

113

137

..

134-136

133

141

139-140

138

..

137

123

122

121 -123

89

88

87

SG

85

84

83

82

81

80

113-114

1.12

103 -105

112

111

110

109

131-132

. 130

128 -129

136

133-135

132

121

120

120

119

118

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

777675

111

110109

102108

127130 -131

129128

119 117116

115

7978777675

74

73

72

71

70

108

107 101

100

107

125-126

127

125-126

124

118

114

.

113

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65106

99

98

97

106

105

124 123

116-117 112

111

110

69

68

67

6665

64

63

6261

60

1.05

104 121 -123

120

122

115

109

64

6362

61

60

59

58

57

56

55104 66

103 118-119

117

115-116

..

114

120-121

119

118

114

113

108

59

58

57

5655

54

53

52

51

50

103

102

102111 -113

110 117

112111

107

106

54535251

50

144

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Scr.,e Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

PLUMBING AND SHEET METAL(Co ntinued)

Per-

centile G V N S P Q K

49

48

47

46

45

16i

95

6:1

101

100

108-109 115-116

111

110

616

105

104

103

44

43

42

41

40

100

99

63

92

66 1.67

113

112 108

107

.

102

39

38

37

36

35 6

oi 93 105 -106

111

110

109

106

1.05

101

34

33

32

31

3067

60 67

96

104

102-103

108

106-107

105

104

104

102-103 10090

29

28

27

26

25

66

95

89

ii 6 103

161

98

9796

24

23

22

21

20

9487

86

64

9. 3

101 102

101

100

99

106

66

95

.

64

93

19

18

17

16

15

93

92 85

92

6i

90

98 -100

6i

. 98

97

9.6 OS

92

91

90

14

13

12

11

10

91

90

..

84

83

86

87-88

89-96

ii

85 -87

95

94

85-93

84

81-83

97

89

88

9

87

6

5

89

888883-88

82

82

79-81

..

8685

ii

..

84

79-83

78

75-77

..

80

78-79

77

76

ie

95

87

8685

84

43

21

79-81

78

58-77

57

78

75 -77

74

77-83

76

61-75

60

74

64-73

68

00-75

59

58

94

88-63

87

79-83

7867-77

86

N=49M=101.47SD=11.74

N=49Nt= 94.07SD= 9.42

N=40M=101.1881)=12.44

N=49M = 121.08SD=19.11

146

N=49M=113.8881)=21.48

N=49M=110.18SD=10.84

Per-

centile

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

F6

35

34

:33

3231

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

N =49M=1G5.4291)=14.97

1'U

I)S

(1S

165160

155150

115110

133130

1.25120

115110

195100

9585

5)175

65(ill

5550

15

Power

and

Hom

e

Electricity

t. Verbal

NN

um.

SSpatial

1.46

Q

l'Intl

P.

Clerival

Nlotor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

POWER AND HOME ELECTRICITY

Per-centile G V N S P Q K

Per-cent&

99 135-147 120-131 136-143 153-156 155-163 1P-150 135-140 99

98 132-134 118-110 135 151-152 151-151 1 6-140 131-134 98

97 131 117 134 148-150 149-150 132-135 128-130 97

06 115-116 133 148 129-131 126-127 96

95 129-130 112-I14 132 147 147 .. 123-125 95

94 III 131 144-146 145-146 127-128 122 94

93 128 110 120-130 141-143 143-144 121 93

92 127 128 140 142 126 92

91 126 109 127 .. 140-141 . 91

90 126 138-139 120 90

S9

88

125

123-124

124-125

122-123 137

139

138

125 89

8887 122 121 134-130 136-137 87

86 "IS 135 124 119 86

85 120 133 134 118 85

84 121 107 .. ._ . 84

83 119 131 -132 133 123 83

82 120 106 11S 132 .. 82

81 116-117 .. 122 117 81

80 119 105 .. 131 121 SO

79 118 115 130 130 120 116 79

78 117 129 .. 78

77 114 128 115 77

76 116 119 114 76

75 1114 128-129 127 113 75

74 115 74

73 113 126 112 73

72 114 127 118 72

71 116-117 111 71

70 113 1(13 112 125 70

69 125-126 110 69

68 115 68

67 119 111 124 109 6766 108 66

65 102 123 65

64 111 110 64

63 122 114 107 6362 109 6261 110 101 124 105 61

60 121 60

59 105 113 105 59

58 140 120 104 58

57

56

199

66

10.7

119102-103 57

50

55 55

54 100 118 112 54

53 12i:123 117 53

52 108 6;3 1.11 52

51 101 51

50 116 110 50

147

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

POWER AND HOME ELETRICITY(Continued)

Per-

centile G V N S P Q KPer-

Gentile

49

48

47

46

45

107

106

97

66

105 120

118-.119

..

115

114

113 109 100

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

105

95

64

104

103

117

112

111

108

..

66

63

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

104

Oi

102

115 -116 110

109

107

106

105

..

97

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

103

102

62

101

100

114

111.-.113

1.63

107

104

96

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

101

100

91

90

99

110108-109 f06

105

104

103

102 -103

95

94

93

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

66

89

88

98

97

96

107

105 -106

102

101

100

99

101

92

91

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

98

67 37

95

64

104

102 -103

101

..

63

97

..

100

..

66

..

90

89

ii

87

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

96

95

94

86

85

93

92

91

90

98-100

97

95-96

92-94

96

95

Oi

93

98

..

97

86

85

83-84

82

14

13

12

11

10

98

7

6

5

93

92

90-91

89

87-88

ii

88

82

89

88

85-87

84

91

89-90

88

85-87

84

92

91

88-90

85-87

96

95

94

93

91-92

81

79-80

78

76-77

74-75

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

P4-86

83

81-82

66-80

81

80

74-79

63-73

83

82

77-81

72-76

81-83

78-80

71-77

65-70

84

83

72-82

65-71

89-90

88

87

84-86

73

72

66-71

37-65

4

3

2

1

N=207M=107.88SD =12.43

N=207M= 97.14SD=10.19

N=207M=100.36SD =13.39

N=207M=117.73SD =17.81

148

N=207M..115.88SD =18.13

N=207M=110.55SD =11.87

N=207M=101.66SD = 15.74

16

100

155

150

145

110

135

1:30

115

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

55

$0

75

70

65

GO

55

50

45

Printing and Graphic Arts

-4

Ctnt.

VVerbal

S

Num. Spatial Forsit I'. Clerical

149

Slotor

,

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTS--------Per-

centile G V P () HPer-

centile

99 136 126-133 130-136 154-156 156-162 137-141 135-144 9098 135 .. 129 153 155 134 9897 133-134 125 126-128 148-152 152-154 136 133 9796 123-132 123-124 125 147 150-151 134-135 132 9695 123-127 120-122 .. 144-146 1411 130-133 127-131 95

94 118-119 124 143 .. 129 126 9493 .. 123 .. 148 .. 9302 122 117 122 141-142 147 128 125 9291 115-116 121 145-146 126-127 124 9190 112-114 90

89 121 110-111 .. 140 144 125 123 S988 120 120 143 124 122 8887 119 119 138-142 .. 121 8780 11S 138-139 137 123 8685 109 120 85

84 118 116 -117 137 136 8483 8382 117 115 134.-136 1.3.5 119 8281 133 134 122 118 8180 116 1.14 131-132 SO

79 108 121 117 7978 130 133 7877 1.2.0 116 7776 115 107 113 128 -129 ..75 132 115 75

74 114 127 131 119 .7473

. . .. 7372 106 11.2 130 114 7271 125-.126 128-129 113 71711 113 126-127 118 112 70

69 101) 111 125 111 6968

, . 6867 i'ull 124 116-117 110 6766 11'2 110 123 109 6665 103 122 65

64 115 108 6463 124 6362 111 1-0.9 121 6261 102 120 6160 147 60

59 110 119 5958 5857 109 101 168 114 . 5756 107 118 10 6 5655 121.-12.3 105 55

54 108 100 104 5453 103 5352 1.00 120 117 102 5251 10.5 5150 113 50

150

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTS(Continued)

Per-centile 6 V N S P 0 K

Per-cent&

.4948474645

107

99104

118-119

117

116101 48

474645

44434241

40

106

105 103

103

115-116115

112

110.-111

100

9998

44434241

40

393837.3635

:34

333231

30

.

104.

. .

103

97..

1112

101

114

111 -113

114

118

112

1119

16.8

97..

95-9692-94

3938373635

6f'; 106 110

108-109

111

110109

61

34333231

30

2928272625

102

101

100

95

94

99

98107

108

107

107

106

90

89

2928272625

24232221

20

99

98

93

92

97

96105.-.106

106105

. .

105

104102-103

8887

24232'_'

2120

1918

17

16

15

97

066.1

91

9. 0

88-8985-87

. .

959493

104..

102-103101

. .

104

103101-102

i 0 1

. .

100..

8682-8579-81

19

1817

1615

1413

12

11

10

95

94

84

82-8381

6.2

98-10097

95-9694

89-93

inn999897

. .

99

.

78.

74 -7773

14

1312

11

10

9g765

92-93

91

9089

80

77 -7976

9189-9087-88

SG

85-8884

82-8381

, .

95-9694

oi

9897

9694-95

71-72

7.0

68-6965-67

9S

765

4

321

ii;

8784-86

7574

70-7368-69

77-8576

73-7569-72

79-8078

75-7774

929190

80-89

93

9.-9. 2087-89

63-6462

56 -61.49-55

4321

N=80 N=80 N =80 N =80 N=80 N=80 N=80M =107.47 M= 99.20 M=105.01 M =117.30 M =118.04 M= 112.34 M= 100.57SD= 10,93 SI.)= 19.28 SD= 12.11 SD = 18.19 SD=17.09 SD =10.88 SD=19.01

161

A1'

1'I.U

1)SC0

IiS

105100

155150

115110

135130

125120

115110

105100

9590

8580

7570

6560

5550

45

Welding

C V

Int.

Verbal

Num

.

Sp,

tial

Form

P.

Clerical

Motor

151

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

WELDING

Per-centile G V N S P Q K

Per-centile

99 133-139 119-125 130-141 148-153 153-162 138-146 136-144 9998 128-132 115-118 126-129 144-147 149-152 134-137 133-135 9897 125-127 112-114 125 147-148 131-133 130-132 9796 123-124 111 123-124 1.13 146 130 127-129 9695 122 110 122 140-142 144-145 129 125-126 95

94 119-121 109 121 138-139 143 123 124 9493 118 120 137 140-142 126 -127 121-123 9392 .. 108 118-119 . . 138-139 125 9291 117 107 116-117 134-136 137 . . 120 9190 116 106 136 124 . . 90

89 115 105 115 118-119 8988 104 114 133 1.3.5 . . 8887 103 113 134 123 117 8786 114 112 133 122 . . 8085 131 -132 132 121 115-116 85

84 113 102 111 130 120 114 8483 130 -131 . . 8382 112 101 128-129 119 113 8281 111 110 127 1.2.9 112 8180 118 80

79 100 125-126 128 111 7978 110 109 127 1161:117 . 787776 99

126125 115

110 777(3

75 108 109 75

74 109 108 7473 124 1.2.4 7372 108 123 107 7271 98 122 71

70 167 114 106 70

69 107 121 105 6968 104 6867 67 10.6 121 -123 120 6766 11.3 6665 .. 119 103 65

64 106 105 120 6463 . . 11.8 112 102 6362 95 6261 105 104 111 61

60 .. 118-119 117 60

59 5958 104 o 110 101 5857 103 116 5756 115 5655 103 117 109 55

54 94 102 114 100 5453 5352 102 66 5251 101 113 5150 115 -116 108 oi 50

153

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

WELDING(Continued)

Per-centile G V it S P Q

Per-K centile

49

48

47

46

45

101 03

92

100

99

114

1.12

111

107

97

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

100

90

91 98 111:113

110

..

109

108

107

106

105

9)1

1.))

44

43

42

41

40

3938

37

36

35

68

9.0

97

06

110

111-.109

106

..

105

104

102-103

.

04

92-93

.

61

39

38

37

36

35

3433

32

31

30

97

9(1

95

84

95

94

107

104

1.03

102

101

100

,

44

89

88

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

2)1

25

94

88

93

4,2

..

105-106

104

..

101

.

100

00 37

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

93

6,.2.

87

813

85

01

90

89

..

102 -103

101

98-100

64

68

97

68 86

.

35

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

61

90

SO

84

83

82

88

8G-87

85

95-97

64

92-93

96..

95

64

97

66

05

84

83

82

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

88S7

8685

84

81

80

84

83

82

79-81

01

89-90

92-93

91

0089

88

64

93

92

..

81

80

..

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

83

82

80-81

79

79

78

77

76

78

77

75-76'74

88

S5-S7

84

82-S3

79-81

87

86

85

84

81-83

41

89.-90

88

79

78

77

75-76

74

9

S

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

78

75 -77

61-74

75

73-74

67-72

05-66

71.78

69-70

67-68

59-66

75-78

74

69-73

55-68

80

77-79

74-76

60-73

86-87

82-85

65-81

72-73

69-71

63-6S

62

4

3

2

1

N =254M =101,26SD= 12.5?

N =254M= 92.96SD=10,33

N =259M= 99.49S = 13,99

N =259M =113.02SD= 17.78

N=254M = 112.380=-18.51

N =254M =107.76SD= 12.79

N=254M = 98.31SD= 15.76

154

A

T

TU1)

S

C0

S

165

00

155

150

115

140

135

130

125

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

SO

75

70

85

60

55

50

45

Accounting

C V QInt. Verbal Num, Spatial Form P. Clerical Nfotor

155

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

. ACCOUNTING

Per-centile G V N S P 0 K

Per-cenlile

99 139-144 131-135 145-150 150 -1511 1116 -175 155-171 142-167 99

98 136-138 126-130 143-144 147-149 162-165 151-154 141 98

97 135 124-125 142 144-146 158-101 148-150 140 07

96 134 122-123 141 141-143 155-157 146-147 138-139 96

95 133 121 140 140 150-154 143-145 135-137 05

94 132 120 137-130 138-139 147-149 142 134 04

93 131 110 136 137 145-146 141 133 03

02 118 135 134-136 140 132 . 92

91 60 .. 134 133 144 139 130-131 91

90 128-120 117 133 131-132 142-143 .. 129 90

80 127 132 141 137-138 128 8988 116 .. 140 88

87 126 131 130 130 66 126-127 87

86 145 130 135 125 86

85 125 128-120 138 124 85

84 124 .. 120 137 134 123 84

83 112-114 . . 122 83

82 111 127 136 133 121 82

81 123 123 135 132 81

80 110 80

79 127 1.34 131 120 79

78 122 126 125-126 78

77 160 133 130 77

76 125 119 7675 121 132 1.2.9 75

74 . . 118 74

73 124 131 .. 73

72 120 130 128 . 72

71 123 124 129 127 117 71

70 119 108 126 70

60 .. 116 60

68 122 128 125 68

67 118 127 115 67

66 107 66

65 126 124 114 65

64 121 64

63 117 121:123 125 123 113. 63

62 106 120 62

61 .. 61

60 124 122 112 60

50 116 119 121 59

58 105 120 58

57 123 120 111 57

56 143 56

55 115 110 55

54 104 117 118-119 122 5453 lit) 109 5352 5251 114 103 116 121 5150 117 108 50

156

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota. Area Vocational-Technical Schools

ACCOUNTING(Continued)

Per-centile 0 V N 5 P 0 K

Per-cent ile

4948474645

113

112

1.09

101 115

115.-116

120

119

118

118

11(1 -117

107

166

4948474645

4443424140

111 100 114

114

111 -113

. 117

116115

105104

103

44434241

40

3938373635

110113

112110

115

114

113 114

1.92

101

3938373635

3433323130

109

98

67

111

64

108-109

1":7

112111

113

100

9998

34333231

30

2928272625

108

107 oc.,

109

105.-106

104

110

109

108112

.

67,

66

2928272625

24232221

20

106

105

104

95

108

107102-103

101

107106

105

111

110

10.9

95

64.

93

24232221

20

1918171015

103

102

64

6

106

1.95

.

..98-100

9. 7.

104

103

.

108

92.

91

90

191817

1615

14131211

10

101

10099

62.

61

..

104

103

102

95-9692-94

ai

102101100

6

107

106

105..

89

8887

14

13

12

11

10

98765

. .

97-98969594

90

ia

8887

101

1009998

. -

89-9088

85-8784

9897

95-969493

104101-103100

66

8685

83-848281

98765

43

2

1

9391-9287-9077-86

85-8684

80-8374-79

96-9795

C '941 -92

82-8379-8175-7871-74

9290-9188-8967-87

9897

93-9681-92

77-8073-7663-7235-62

4

3

21

N =39851 =113.52SD = 11.43

N =308M =103.02SD= 10.48

N =398M =116.78SD =12.38

N =308M =114.38S D=16.20

157

N =398M =120.52SD = 17.54

N =398M =119.9891)=13.63

N =398M =107.18SD = 17.56

101

155

150

115

110

135

1311

123

120

115

110

1115

100

05

(1(1

85

5(1

75

70

('5

55

SO

15

Chefs and Cooks

7.

VerbalN

Nmn. Sp: Oaf

158

(s)

1,0E n l'. Cie ica1K

Ntolor

.1

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

CHEFS AND COOKS

Per-

centile C V e 0 KPer-

centile

99

98

97

96

95

129

128

129

125-128

120-124

119

112-118

132

130-131

129

128

150

143-149

141-142

140

138-139

147

142-146

..

141

138-140

143

139-142

130-138

129

127-128

140

133-139

.

132

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

94

93

92

91

90

..

123-127

121-122

120

..

Ill

110

109

127

122-126

137

134 -136

133

..

131-132

137

130

135

134

126

125

..

131

130

129

89

88

87

86

85

118-119

117

116 108

119-121

11.5 1.30

133

132

131

124

127-12S

126

125

124

123

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

115

114

107

106

105

115-117

114

128-129

127

123 -126

124

130

129

128

126-127

123 121-122

120

119

118

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

113 161

103

113

112

111

..

121-123

120

118-119

125

..

124

..

122

..

120 -121

117

116

115

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

112

..

111

110 102

110

109

108

117

115 -116

..

123

119

..

115-118

..

..

114

..

113

7'4

73

72

71

70

09

68

67

60

65

109

108

471101

107

190

114

111-113

122

121 1111

112

..

111

110

69

68

67

00

65

61

63

62

61

60

106

105

100

66

196

1101.2.0

113

109

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

104

08

97

104

103

108 -109

119

117-118

116

112

110-111

108

107

105-106

104

..

59

58

5750

55

54

53

52

51

50

103

102

90

95 106:102

107

..

115

114

113

1.66

103

54

53

52

51

50

159

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

CHEFS AND COOKS(Continued)

Per-

centile G V N S P Q KPer-

centile

4948474645

101

t105 -106

112

111

108

107106105

1024948474645

44434241

40

100

99

63 99 104

109-110108'

104

101

.160

4443424140

313

38373635

98

97

96

62

102-103 1j7

106

105

102-103

9998

Oi

39383731;

35

3433323130

95

93-94

91

66

98

Oi

101

98 -100

10:7-104

102

101 9695

Oi

93

3433323130

29282726

2592

8996

92-9591

67

..95-9692-94

141

99-100

10062

oi

87-90

2928272625

2423222120

91

89-9088

88

ai

90

685-88

oi

89 -90

98

Oi

96

99

6

2423222120

1918171615

8786

85

86

84 -85

83

84

81 -83..

..

88

8-87

95

9.4.

9392

98

oi

8584

82-8381

1918171615

1413121110

8482 -83

8180

71-79

82.

77-8176

SO

7978

76-77..

..

ii

82-83

89-91

ia

66

aO

iO

14131211

10

98765

7066-69

6515

ii

75

67 -74

6661-65

8175-80

74

69 -73

87

83-8682

79-81

9.5

94

89 -93

78

7.7

7.6.

98765

4321

6462-63

61

73

67-7266

6057-5954-56

53

6866-67

65

7874-7769-73

68

ii

80-8779

7.5

62-7431

4321

N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61M=100.16 M- 95.38 M= 99.82 M=106.39 M=111.61 M=109.30 M=102.33SD-16.60 SD -12.35 SD=17.58 0=19.20 SD=17.76 SD=12.68 SD=19.15

160

16-

)60

155

150

145

140

135.1

I' 1:30

125

120

I) 115

li110

S 105

() IINI

I(95

s

Ml

75

71)

65

60

55

50

45

Clerical Training

L t.V

Verbalrt

NanS

Spati..1

161

For 0 P. Clerical motor

1

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

CLERICAL TRAINING

Per-

centile 6 V N S P 0 HPer-

centile

99 133-145 125-137 137-144 143-156 159-171 156-166 145-159 99

98 130-132 122-124 134-136 141-142 157-158 151-155 141-114 98

97 128-129 120-121 132-133 138-140 155-156 152 -153 140 97

96 126-127 119 131 137 152-154 151 137-139 96

95 125 118 1311 134-136 151 149-150 135-136 95

94 124 . 117 133 148-150 146 -148. . 94

93 123 116 129 131-132 147 141.145 134 93

92 .. 115 128 .. 145-146 143 133 92

91 122 127 130 144 142 132 91

90 121 112 -114 126 128-129 143 141 131 90

89 125 139-140 130 89

88 120 111 124 127 142 .. 129 88

87 119 123 141 138 87

86 118 110 122 125 -126 140 137 128 5685 . . 139 136 85

84 117 121 138 127 84

83 169 120 . . 135 126 83

82 116 137 134 125 82

81 . . 119 136 81

80 115 124 12.4 80

79 114 118 135 133 79

78 108 78

77 117 13.4 1:32 123 77

76 113 131 122 76

75 107 116 133 12] 75

74 121-123 130 74

73 112 106 132 129 73

72 115 126 72

71 111 131 128 71

70 105 1°26 127 70

69 114 130 126 69

68 110 119 CS

67 113 118 -i19 129 118 67

66 66

65 109 104 128 65

64 112 117 125 64

63 117 63

62 127 62

61 163 103 111 115-116 .. 116 61

60 126 60

59 124 59

58' 110 12.5 115 58

57 107 102 114 57

56 123 114 56

55 10.9 124 55

54 54

53 106 111 -113 113 53

52 101 108 123 52

51 122 51

50- 110 112 50

162

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

CLERICAL TRAINING(Continued)

Per-

centile G V N S P QPer-

K cenlile

49 105 100 107 122 121 49

48 108-100 III 4847 1'2) 47

46 104 66 126 1.19 46

45 106 120 45

44 107 109 4443 103 98 119 4342 105 108 4241 102 119 41

40 97 105 -106 1.I8 40

39 107 3938 104 117 3837 10.1 3730 10.3 10.4 116 118 106 3635 91 116-117 35

34 100 115 105 3433 102 :15 3332 102-103 114 104 3231 99 3130 95 101 113 114 103 3029. .. 101 102 2928 98 112 2827 9-100 2726 97 64 1011 III 2625 97 113 101 25

24 . 2423 96 93 99 110 2322 9-06 109 2221 112 100 21

20 95 92 98 94 108 99 20

19 92-93 107 1 1 1 1018 91 91 97 110 OS IS17 .. . 1.7

16 90 91 1011 109 97 1615 63 96 911 15

14 95 89-90 105 108 95 14

13 92 811 104 107 94 1312 94 103 106 93 1211 61 88 93 88 1112 105 92 11

10 101 1(14 01 III

9 90 87 92 85-87 100 101-103 00 0S 89 86 01 84 99 .. 88-80 S

7 88 90 82-83 100 87 7

6 87 85 88-89 .. 07-98S 86 87 SI 95-96 99 86

4 85 84 85-86 78-8(1 94 97-95 .84-85 4

3 84 83 81-84 75-77 91-93 95-96 82-83 32 82-83 81-82 79-80 74 83.90 93-94 76-81 21 73-81 70-80 50-78 61-73 42-82 78-92 4._5-75 I

N=551 N=551 N=551 N=551 N=551 N=551_

5=551N4=105.19 M =100.27 -M =107.98 N1=109,26 N1=121.25 M=121.00 N1=111.25SD= 11.80 SD=10.03 SD=12.98 81)=18.68 SD = 17.05 SD=14.31 SD =15.54

163

A1

U1)

S0

ItS

ItNI

155150

145140

135130

12.5ISO

115110

105100

9585

8075

7065

6055

5045

Cosm

etology

G V

Int

Verbal

Num

.

Spatial

Form

1'.

Clerical

Motor

164

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms f'rMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

COSMETOLOGY

Per-

(eel& G V N S P Q KPer-

cengIe

99

98

97

96

95

130-138

127-129

126

125

126-139

124-125

123

122

121

138-142

132-137

129-131

128

126-127

147 -ISO

138-146

137

163-176

160-162

158-159

157

156

151-176

149-150

147-148

146

145

144-163

141-143

.

140

138-139

99

98

97

90

95

94

93

92

91

90

124

123

122

119-120

118

116-117

115

112-114

125

124

123

121-122

134-130

133

..

131-132

154-155

153

151-152

150

149

144

143

142

140-141

139

135-137

134

132-133

131

130

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

8685

121

120

119

118

117

111

110

120

119

118

117

130

128 -129

148

. .

147

146

145

138

137

136

129

128

127

126

125

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

SO

116

115

109

108

116

115

127

125 -126

144

143

135

.

124

123

122

84

83

82

S I

80

79

78

77

76

75

114 107

114

113

142

141

140

134

133

132

121

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

113

112

106

112 124 136

138

..

131

129 -130

120

116

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

111

165

111

110 121 -123

137

136

135

128

127

126

118

fl,.

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

110

104

109

. .

126

134

133

132

125

124

1'10

115

04

63

62

61

60

59585756

55

109

108

103

102

108

107

106

118 -119

117

131

130

123

114

113

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

107

101

105

115-116

129

128

122

112

111

110

54

53

52

51

50

165

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

COSMETOLOGY(Continued)

Per-

centile G V N S P QPer-

K centile

49

48

47

46

45

106

105

100

99

1.04

114 127

1.26

121

120

109

108

49

48

47

46

45

--44 111-113 44

43 103 125 43

42 104 1'1'0 107 42

41 119 41

40 124 106 40

39 103 97 108-109 39

38 102 105 38

37 102 12.3 37

36 167 122 104 36

35 101 96 101 103 35

34 121 118 102 34

33 33

32 16.0 100 105 -106 120 3231 95 116-117 31

30 99 99 104 119 101 30

26 29

28 98 118 115 28

27

26

2597

. .

94 98 102 -103 I 1 i

1)6

100

66

27

26

25

24 . . 101 114 24

23 96 97 115 98 2322 93 97 22

21 98-100 113 21

20 91-95 9. 2 114 96 20

19 . . 96 97 1918 91 95 113 112 1817 9. 3 95-96 95 1716 94 112 111 1615 . . 90 93 111 110 15

14 . . . 94 110 94 1413 9. 2 89 92 . . 109 93 1312 109 108 91-92 1211 91 88 91 92-93 . . 90 11

II) 90 91 108 107 89 10

9 89 87 90 107 87-88 98 86 . . 89-90 100 141 87 88 88-S9 . 88 104-105 105 8. 0 76 87 84-85 87 . . 85 (1

5 83 80 85-87 103 104- 84 5

4 85-86 . . 85 4 102 .. 82-83 .1

3 84 82 83-84 79-83 100-101 102-103 79-81 32 81-83 80-81 76-82 75-78 95-99 100 -101 73-78 21 76-80 76-79 69-75 71-74 83-94 93-99 62-72 1

N =249 N=249 N =249 N =249 N =249 N=249 N =249M=105.61 M=100.53 M= 105.42 M=112.64 M =128.27 M=122.93 M= 109,82SD= 11.72 SD= 10.54 SD = 12.19 SD= 15.80 SD= 16.23 SD= 12.74 SD= 18.11

166

S

S

1115

11,0

151

150

1.15

110

155

120

121

120

115

110

] 05

11/0

h5

75

711

55

so

IS

Data Processing

Num. Sp. tia 1 Firm ti P. Clerival Nlotur

167

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

DATA PROCESSING

Per-

centile G V N S P 0 KPer-

centile

9998979695

143-155136-142

135133-134

132

128-139127

124-126123

147-151145-146143-144141-142

140

147-153143-146141-142138-140

..

165-168158-164155-157153-154

152

154-101153152

149-151143

143-146140-142137-139135-136

134

9998979095

9493929190

131130129

127-123. ,

122

121

120

139137-138

130135

, .

137134-136

..

..133

151150

147-149145-146

144

145-147144

142-143141

140

132-133131130..

127-129

9493929190

8988878685

126119

118117116

134

13.3

132131

. .

131-132

130

143. .

142

139138

136-137135

126125124123

8988878685

8483828180

125

124115..

112-114

130129128127126

128-129. .

141140

138-130137

134

1.3.3

132

122

121

8483828180

7978777675

123

122 111

125

121

127

. . .

125-126

13.6

131130

129

120

119

7978777675

74737271

70

1.21

110

123

12.2

..

135134.. .

13.3

128

118

117

7473727170

6908G7

6665

..120

119

109121120

119

124. . 132

131

127126

125

116

115

6968676665

6463626160

118

117 118

121-123..

130

12.9124

. .

114113

112

0463626160

5958575655

116

108

107117

116

120

118-119

128

127

..

123

111

5958575655

5453525150

115

114

10.6115

114 117

12.6

125

122

12.1

110

109

5453525150

168

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

DATA PROCESSING(Continued)

Per-centile G V N S P Q K

Per-centile

4948474645

113 105

104

1.13

112I I i-116

124

123

120 108

107

4948474645

4443424140

112

111103 111

1.10

114

1.2.2

121

119106

105

4443424140

3938373635

110

102

101

109 111 -113

120119

118

118. .

116-117115

104

103

3938373635

3433323130

109

108100

108

107

110117

114

102 3433323130

2928272025

107

106

66 1.66

108-109

107

116

1.1.5

M.:114

113

1.1.2

.1.61

100

2928272625

2423222120

105

104

98

97

105

10.4

105 -106

104

1.1.2

111

110 .

9993979695

2423222120

1918171615

1039.6 .

1.9.3

1.0210`1 -103

101

1 1 1

110108-109

1.09

108106-107

94

93. .

92

1918171615

1413

12I I

10

102

101

95

94

93. .

101

106

. .

98-10097

95-95

107103-106

102101

09-100

105

102 -104

101

919089

87-8886

1413121110

98765

10099989796

92

61

. .

990897

95-9693-94

91

92-9391. .

98

67

9695

100

66

98

85848382

98765

4321

9592-9488-9185-87

9089

86-8878.35

9290-9184-8975-83

88-9084-8778-8374-77

9491-9384-9078-83

. .

9790-9681 -89

80-8173-79

7762-76

4321

N=157 N=1157 N=167 N =157 N =167 N=157 N=1674.00 14..105.52 M=115.04 M=115.61 M=124.14 M=120.77 M=108.16

SD= .1.47 SD= 10.11 SD = 12.08 SD= 14.66 SD= 17.00 SD=14.49 SD= 15.37

169

165

160

155

150

1.15

110

Dental Assistant

125

121)

115

no

ti 305

(1 100

11

h.

90

b5

SO

75

70.

65

GO

55

50

45C X'

N'erhalN

Num,S

Spatial

170

Q

Fur it 1'. ClericalIC

Motor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

DENTAL ASSISTANT

Per-cenlOr G V N 3 P Q K

Per-cenlile

.9993979995

138130-137

129

141

132-140131

120-130125

135

13(1-134129

..128

15

1,, :521511

114-119114

168

107164-100

163

154153

, .

152

151141-150

110133-139

099897911

95

9493

9291

90

125-128

124

1.23

124

123

..127

126..

125

111-.12140

138-139137

131-136

158-162157

15414 59153152

. .

151

144-150143

132

43.1

. 1.30

94

939291

90

898387SO

S5

. .

122120-121

119

122121

..120

..124

123

122

121

130

128-129127

125-126

151

150

149

142140-141

139

133

.

127-12912)1

125

S9

8S

878685

e4838281

80

1.13

110110-113

120118-119

117 42.4

..146-148

145. .

141

130-137135134

121

84S3

8281

80

7978777675

117

11.0

1.15

..

116

1.1.5 121 -123

1.43

1121.11,

133

132

. .

..121-123

. .

7978777675

7473-

7271

70

115

11 4

113

112-.114

Ill

114

113 120

140

139

131

130120

74737271

6968676065

112 110

109

112

111

..118-119

117115-116

138129

128

.. 096367

0665

64636261

60

1 1 1

1.10

103

107

1.1.0 141137

136

..127126

119118

64(13

6261

(10

5958575655

106105

16111 -113

135

134

125

124

1.1.7

5053575655

54535251

50

109

104

1.03

110

108-.109

133

132

123

121 -122

116

115

54

535251

50

171

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

DENTAL ASSISTANT(Continued)

Per-centile G Y N S P 0

Per-K centile

49 10848'47 1074(1

4:5 106103

107100 13.1

130

120

. .

114113

49

48474645

4443 1054241

40 1.0.4

102 10-5

16.7 129

128

1.27

119 112 94

434241

40

3938373035

1.01

104105-1011

. .

126124-125

123122

118

116 -117

111

110

3938

373635

3433 103323130

100103

102101

10 -1

. .

121

. .

119-120118

109

34.33

3231

30

2928272625' 102

99

98

100

69

95 102.-103

117

115 108

107

102-106

2928272625

24232221 101

200-7.

117

94-96

9.3

10.1

116

115

114101

2423222120

19 99-100IS 95

17 96-971615 . .

OO

95

..

9288-91

87

9S-10097

95-96

114

11-3

110-112

113111-112

110

109

10009OS

19

18

17

16

15

14 951312 92.-9. 4

11 ..10

oi8. 6.

85

94

92-93

91

109

108

106 -107

108

106-107105

102-104

6..7

96

95

1413

1211

10

9 91876 87-965 86

39929190

84

ii

82

86-.9088

85-87. .

105

104

98-10397

101

100

6

9219491

88-9007

98765

4 853 842 75-831 74

87-8986

81-8580

70-8169

64-6863

84..

82-8381

93-9692

90-9189

98.

ii

ia83-85

82

43

21

N=52M=107.80SD=11.97

N=52M =105.08SD= 11.71

N=52M =105.49SD =14.00

N =52M=111.42SD =18.05

N=52M =129.90SD = 18.03

N=52M=122.92SD= 14.05

N=52M=113.29SD= 13.j3

172

16.5

If RI

155

150

145

140

135

Interior Design and Sales Assistant

110

S 105

o 100

Ifo5

S 90

55

SO

75

5:5

50

.15

Verbal Num. (jai For n P.

173

QClerical :Motor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

INTERIOR DESIGN AND SALES ASSISTANT

Per-centile G V N S P Q H

Per-centile

99-98

979695

139135-138

134133132

135128-134

127120-126

136130-135

129..

128

156154-155

153

1.63

159 -162

161

158-160157

152-156..

149141-148

1.49

999897

909.5

94939291

90

126-131125121123122

119116-118

..115

123-127122121

120_ ..

117-152144-146

153

157

153-150152

151

145-150144

.e.'":".

143

.

133-139132131

94

939291

90

8988878685

121

120

112-114

1 11

..110

139

1 1 6:1 IS

115

1.43

150-151

1.49

140-112139

137-138

330

130..

129128127

8988578685

84838281

80

119

118

117

199 114113112

141.-1421.48

..135134

126125

124123

84838281

80

7978777675

1*16

108 111

1119 ..147140

148-145

133132131

130129

122121

120119

..

7978777675

74737271

70

115

114107 119

134-139

133

140-142

139

.. .

128127126

118

.

7473

7271

70

6968676665

113

112

1033

105

1091:31 -132 13S

137135-136

134

125

12.4

..

117

116

69686766135

64636201

60

1081U7

106

1301.33

13.1

131123

115

64

6362

61

60

5958575655

111

110

101

105

..

126-129

130129

128122

114

113112

110-111

5958575655

5453525150

109 103 104

.7127

125.-126127

121

120119

109

1.08

54535251

50

174

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical SchoolsINTERIOR DESIGN 4ND SALES ASSISTANT

(C.. foinued)

Per-

centile G V. N S P Q H centile

Per-

49484746 ..45 .. 102

103

126

118

116.-417

107

106

9948474645

44 1118

434241

40

102

124

12.5

124

115

114

10544434241

40

39383736 10735

101 101

100

123

122

113104

103

3938373635

34333231 10630

100

99

66

121-.123

121

112

110.-.111

102

101

3433323130

2928 10.5

272625

f.)

96-98120

120

119118

109

108

10099

96-98

2928272025

2423 104

222!20 102-103

97

90

ri

11S-119

117

115-416

117

116

95

.

64

2423222120

19 101

1817

16

15 100

95

94

93-94

92

91

1.1.4

114-115113..

112111

107

IOC

93

19IS

17

16

15

14

13 .

12 09.

11

10 98

63

6,2

908988

80-8785

111 -113

110108-109

10710:5-106

.

105..

104100-103

99

.

90 -92

8.6

..

14

131211

10

0 978 ..7 966 91-955 90

86-9 1

87-8886

8. i

81-8380

110

108-109102-107

. .

104103

102100-101

99

9897.

95-9694

8887

83-8681-82

80

98765

4 85-893 8421 83

8584

73-8372

76-7975

70-7469

101

92-10091

86-98858483

92-9391

89-9088

73-79

72

4321

N=5416 =100.85SD =10.65

N=54M=102.72SD= 10.08

N=54M=103.41SD =13.00

=54M =127.13SD = 13.53

N =54M=128.82SD=16.3.5

N =54M =119.81SD = 16.23

N =54M=108.85SD = 10.97

175

S

011

S

Ir.;

Inn

155

150

115

14if

135

130

125

120

110

105

100

95

70

05

00

55

50

45

Medical Lab Assistant

ti Vhut. Verbal Num. Spatial For n P. Clerical :\ loon.

176

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT

Fee-ceno'!e G V N S P 0 K

Per-cenlile

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

145

144

143

..

142

143

138-142

137

136

146 ,,

139.145

138

163

151-152

150

168

167

166

161-105

160

167

166

165

..

164

146

137-145

136

135

134

99

98

97

96

95

141

140

139

136,138

135

134

135-137

134

133

148-149

147

159

158

155-157

154

157-163

156

154-155

153

151-152

133

..

132

..

131

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

135

134

133

132

131

132

144 -446

150 -153

150

147-149

146

145

144

130

129

89

88 .

87

SO

85

84

83

82

81

80

133

130

129

128

127

126

131

130

128-129

143

..

141-142

149

143

128

127

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

132

131

125

127 140

138-139

148

147

142

141

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70 130

124

126

137

146

145

140

139

138

126 74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

123

122

125

124

134-430

144

143

136-137

135

125

124

123

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

129

128

127

121

120

123

122 133

142

141

134

133

.

122

121

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

126

125

124

119

121

120

119

118

131 -132

139-140

138

137

132

131

120

.

119

59

58

57

56

55

5452

52

51

50

123

122 118

117

116

139

136

135

130

129

118 54

53

52

51

50

177

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT(Continued)

Per-centile G V N, S P Q

Per-K centile

49

48

47

46 121

45

117

116

115

112-114

115

128-129

127

13.4

133

128

127

126

125

117

116

4948

47

46

45

44

13

42 1.20

41

40 119

1)) 114

125-126 132

..

131

130

124

115

114

113

44

43

42

41

40

39 118

3S

37 117

36

35

110

113

1.2.4

129

128

127

..

123

110 -112

39

33

37

36

35

34

33 116

32

31'

30 115

109

112

126

..

125

124

122

120-121

166

:34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27 114

26

25

1.68

111

110 121-123

123

12.2

119

:.)8

107

29

28

27

26

25.

24

2a22 113

21

20

107

106

109

120

..

118-119

117

115-116

120-121

119 118

106

105

104

..

103

24

23

2221

20

19 112

18

17 114--

16 109-110

15 108

105

104

108

7107

114

111-113

..

110

118

115-117

114

113

116 -117

115

.

106-102

99

96-98

95

19

18

17

16

15

k(I

14

13 1.07

12

11

10 106

103

102

101

106

,

105

..

104

108-109

107

112

105-111

104

..

114

113

109-112

108

94

53

92

14

13.

12

11

10

9

8 100-105

7 99

6 95-98

5 94

100

99

98

103

92-102

91

88-90

87

..

102-106

101

103

97-102

96

..

95

107

100-106

99

91

00

89

9

8

7

6

5__

4 87-93

3 86

2 85

1 8489 -97

88

8685

e4

92-100

91

89-90

88

87-94

86

63-85

62

92-98

91

83-90

82

85-88

84

63-83

02

4

3

2

1

1,1=49M=121.29SD= 13,54

34=.49M=110.33SD= 12.19

34=49M=117.24SD= 13.04

N =49M= 127,71SD= 15.14

N =49M=131.73SD=20.72

1+1=49M=128.92SD= 17.413

11=49M =114.39SD= 15.71

178

A

Practical Nursing

135

P 130

125

120

1) 115

110

105C

100

11

93

90

S5

SO

70

(35

60

45

hit.V

Verbal Num.ti

Spatial

179

Form 1'. Clericalis

:1 rotor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini Score Training Norms forMinnesota Areo. Vocational-Technical Schools

PRACTICAL NURSING

Per-centile G V N S P Q K

Per-centile

9998979695

137-157131-136

133131-132129-130

137-141134-136132-133129-131127-128

133-157136-137

135134

132-133

143.156147

143-146141-142

110

164-173163

161-162158-160156-157

161-176156-160154-155152-153

151

149-179146-148143-145141-142

140

9998979695

9193929190

128., , ,

127. .

126

126125124

. .

123

. .

131130129128

138-139

137131-136

154-155152-153

151148-150146-147

150147-149145-146

144

133-139135-137

134133

9493929190

8988878685

125

12.4

122121120

127126

. .

125

133

131 -132

145144

143

143142

. .

141140

132131

130

1.2.9

8988878685

84838281

80

123

122

121

119

118

124123122

121

130

128-129. . .

142

1.41

1.49

1.39

138

128

127

1.26

84833281

80

7978777675

120

119

117

110

120

119

127

125 -126

139

13S

137136

. .

135

125

12.4

123. .

7978777675

7473727170

118

117

115

112 -114

111

118

11712.4

137136

135

131122

121

7473727170

6968676665

110

115

110

116

115121 -123

134

133

133

132131130

.

120

119

6968676665

6463626160

114

109

11.4 129132

131

129

128127

118

117

64636261

60

5958575655

113

108 113

112

118 -119

. .

130

129

126. .

1.25

116

.

115

5958575655

5453525150

112

107

106111

117. .

115 -116

123. . .

. .

127124 1111

.

113

5453525150

180

GENERAL APTITUDE, TEST BATTERY

Protect Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

PRACTICAL NURSING(ci,niinutta)

Per-centile G V N S P Q K

Per-renlile

4948474645

111

110 105

110114

111 -113

126

125

123112

49

48474645

44

434241

40

169194

109

108

110

108-109

124

123

122

12.1

111

.

110

44434241

40

Z'1

38373635

108

103 107

107

122

121120119

120

119

109

108

3938373635

3433

3231

30

107

106

102

106

105105 -106

118

11.7

118

107

196

105

3433323130

2928272625

105

104

101

100

104

103

104..

102-103

116..

115

114

116 -117

115

.

104103102

2928272625

24232221

20

103

102

66

98

102 101

..

..113

.

112..

1111

113

101

2423222120

19

181716

15

101

100

97

101

10099

98-100

97

95-96

111

110

109108107

..112..

111

100

99

98

1918171615

14

13

1211

10

99

9897

96

95

98

67

96

9.4

92-93

oi

106

105104..

110

109108..

9796

9594

14

13

1211

10

98765

96.

95.

9493

94

92-939190

95

9491-93

90

89-9088

84-8782-83

103101-102

10097-9995-96

107

105-106101-104

100

92-9390-9188-89

8783-86

98765

c43

21

9291

88-9062-87

8938

84-8770-83

88-8987

85-8668-84

8175-80

7468-73

93-9491-9289-9060-88

9997-9894-9682-93

8276-8164-7539-63

4321

N=50954-111.33SD=11.47

N=509M=107.3881)=11.33

N =509M=111.00SD= 12.47

N =509M=113.43SD =10.88

181

N =509M=125.77SD =17.58

N = 509M=126.06SD =14.93

N =509M=112.51SD=17.55

S

It

S

1,15

1(s0

155

150

1.15

110

1:35

110

125

120

115

110

105

100

95

85

80

/7;

70

.15

Sales

Nam.S

Sp: tin]

182

P 0Farm P. Clerical Nfotor

GENERAL APTITUDE VEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

SALES

Per-

centile G V 0' KPer -

centile

99

98

97

9695

142-144

141

140

129-130

122-137

121

119 -121)

117-118

116

135-153

134

132-133

131

151-156

150

144-149

143

141-142

163

155-162

153-154

152

149-151

142-114

141

135-140

..

135

136-138

132-135

131

130

127-129

99

OS

97

96

95

94

93

92 125-125

91

90

128

127

124

115

112 -114

919

130

128-129

127

126

125

140

138-139

137

134-136

148

146-147

145

144

134

132:133

126

125

..

124

..

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87 122

SO

85

..

-123

121

110

124.

123

133

131-132

130

139-143

138

137

..

136

131

130

129

123

122

121

..

..

89

888726

25

84

83

8281

80

120

119

109 122

..

121

120

128 -920

135

134

128

126-127

125

120

119

84

S3

82

81

80

79 117-118

78

77

76

75

116

16s

119

118

127 6.3

132

124

118

..

117

116

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

115

114

107

106

117

196

125 -126

131

123

122

115

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

113

112

105

104

115

119

129

129-130

128

127

126

125

121

120

..

114

..

..

113

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

199 103 113 121 -923

129

123

122

fig

..

112

111

110

109

64

63

62

61

50

59

58

57

56

55

110

109

192 112

111

110

120

118-119

121

120

118

116 -117

108

..

107

59

58

57

56

55

.54

53

52

51

50

108

101

100

109

-11.7

115 -116

119

118

115

106

16.5

5453

52

51

50

i83

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

SALES(Continued)

Per-centile G V N S P Q

Per-K cent&

4948474045

10.7

6106

107114

11711.4

104103102

4948474645

44431241

40

106

105 98106

111 -113

110

110

1.1

112

..

101

100

44434241

40

3938373635

104

10.397

105

104

108-109

107

105-106

114

113112111

112 99

393S373635

3433323130

162

101

9695

9.1

102

162104

110

10. 9.

111110

9897

96

3433323130

292S272625

100

996

101

100

102 -103..

101

108107106..

105

109 95

.

9493

2928272625

24232221

20

..98

92

6

6

6

98-100104

102102

108 92

9.1.

00

2423222120

1918171615

97

06

90

697..

96

97

95-60

101

99-10097-98

96

10.7

106

6

88

1918

171615

14131211

10

..

9.5.

..

88

ii ,.

..

95

6.4

oi

6

92 -93

91.

6

9.4.

105

104

. 81

6

14131211

10

98765

94

9391-9288-90

84 -85

83

..92

90-9189

89-9088

85-8784

79-83

692

90-9189

102 -103101100

..

83-S58281

79-80

9

8765

4321

85-878483

79-82

8281

6

86-8885

81-8478-80

7875-77, 7471-73

8885-8782-8477-81

9.9.

91-9878-90

7875-7769-7460-68

4321

N =108M =108.22SD = 12,53

N.108M = 31.89Si) 10.12

N =108M =109.04SD= 12.89

N =108M =113.67SD =17.78

N =108M =118.29SD =18.38

N =108M=116.03SD =11.14

N =108M =104.28SD=15.32

184

AI)

SO

ItS

so75

7(1fu

13055

5045

Secretarial

Training

t. 1)31

Nun).

SSpatial

185

I)

Fur

11P.

rit

Motor

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

SECRETARIAL TRAINING

Per-renlile V 1

112.151139-111Ils

137

136

135

13 1

131132131

130

129

S P () hPer.

renlile

99949796

95

9193929190

59

Ns57sos5

41sl.2slSO

7!)78777675

74

73

72

71

70

137.111135.136

III131

132

131

330

129

125

127

126

125

121

123

131.113132.13 1129431127.12"

126

121121

121

122

121

121)

119

I Is

113.156111.112

1 In13s139

137

131.1301.13

111-132

130

12S -129

127

301.169101.16211s.119

156.157

111-111

152-1531.10-11111..119

137316

115111113

112 ____

Ill110

1:19

301.171102.161156161111.1'15112.113

151

119.1.10117-114115.116III113

112111

III)

139

1:35

1:37

1136

1:35

153.379111.153149.150

I is146.147

114.115143

111.1121 lo139

1:34

337

136

1:15

131333

132131

.

130129

128

9995979691

9193

929190

594'S7s655

s5342

`I50

7974717675

74

73

72

71

70

125

320-127

125-126

.

122

.

121

117

110

125

124

123

32.1

___

1.3S

31.7

120

119

115

112-114

122

121

121-123

136

135

134

.

127

126

69

68

67

66

65

118

147

111

110

1:4

119120

134

133

132

133

132

13.1

125

.

124

12:3

122

69

68

a6665.

64

63

62

61

60

64

63

62

61

60

116 109 118

117 118 :119

131

139

1.39

129

59

58

57

56

55

115

144 108

146

115

117

129

128

..

127

128

121

126

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

113

112

107

114

115-416 126

125

127

126119

54

53

52

50

186

GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY

Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools

SECRETARIAL TRAINING(Continued)

Per.

centile 6 V N S P UPer-

K cenIde

49 106 114 IIs 4948 113 124 125 4S

7 III 4746 111.113 46

45 103 112 123 121 45

44 110 117 41

43 110 342 101 122 42

41 109 111 123 116 41

40 1 0*(.1 09 121 in39 39;P: 111\ 1113 115 3S

37 110 107 120 122 :37

36 3635 109 105-106 121 114 35

31 107 102 119 120 34

33 113 33q IOS 1I8 12

a 101 164 112 11

.. . .

0 106 117 119 311

29 107 III 292.`i 116 110 28

27 100 2726 105 1116 102-103 115 118 109 2625 lOs 25

24 114 116.117 24

23 101 99 105 101 113 107 23

22 112 115 22

21 103 III 106 21

20 95 104 9S-100 110 20

19 102 114 105 19

18 103 oi. 109 18

17 101 97 .. 108 104 17

16 102 95 -963 11:3 1(13 16

15 100 107 102 15

14 96 101 106 112 .. 14

13 99 100 94 .. 101 13

12 0 95 99 105 116-111 .. 12

II 98 92 -93 104 99-100 II

10 94 93 103 109 9S 10

9 97 97 91 .. 108 97 9

8 96 93 96 101-102 . 96 87 95 92 8S -90 100 107 95 7

6 94 91 95 85-87 99 105-106 93-94 65 93 .. 94 84 98 .. 90-92 5

4 92 90 92-93 82-83 93-97 101-104 88-89 4

3 90-91 88-89 90-91 81 93-94 100 84-87 3

2 89 86-87 85 -S9 78-80 90-92 97-99 74-83 2I 77-88 76-85 98-84 65-77 80-89 75-99 29-73 1

N =739 N -730 N =739 N =739 N =739 N =739 N =739M =112.3 M =10723 N1=114.15 M --. 112.13 M=125.23 M=126.49 M= 117.94SD= 11.78 SD= 11.09 SD= 13.02 SD= 15.38 SD=16.67 SD-14.48 SD= 17.94

187

EXPECTANCY TABLES FOR FRESHMEN

ENTERING MINNESOTA COLLEGES

The expectancy tables on the following pages aresimilar to tables published in earlier editions. For cashgroup there are two tables for predicting first yearcollege marks, one based on high school percentileranks (MR) and one based on the Minnesota Scho-lastic Aptitude Test (MSAT).

The user is referred to Dr. Perry's chapter on testinterpretation for a further discussion of the use ofthese tables.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND HOME ECONOMICS

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College In Fall of 1968.

FEMALES

Per-centile

S(i -990)-70411-5920-30

1-19

Per-cent

of class

533017

HSRN =193

Per-cent

of class

MSATN=180

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Highor

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

02 4079 1747 6

--

362420146

92 4375 1880 2960 864

MALES

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN=265

Per-cent

of class

MSATN=234

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

373823

2

89 3170 846 7*

25232523

4

81 2975 2361 762 2s

The number of students in this sell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

189

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =1071

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

00-90 35 02 17 34 90 4SO-89 24 80 IS. 10 7060-79 20 67 10 25 71 1410-59 10 56 17 65 820-39 2 7 9 5 54

1-19 55

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 1781

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =1812

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

90-09 23 SS 45 27 82 -3980-89 22 74 20 18 73 2060-79 :3 62 10 31 1340-59 17 50 7 20 55 820-39 4 57 11 5 5 8

1-19

*The number of students in this cell is not largo enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell,

190

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

EDUCATION

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Yoar Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males and Females Combined

HSRN 7/)

100 of a

MSATN - 71

Chances in 100 of aChances inPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class

or Higher B or Higher IC or Higher B or Higher

SO-99 51 liti 13 25 8:i 22:1:1 1;1 :11 I 55

111-.59 it/ 2.1 17 11

20-30 171 50

1-19

*The nom HT of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a relialde percentage.--No students in this cell.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grado Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

H SRN = 23

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =23

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 65 113 48 100 7380-89 26 3560-79 9 1340-59 420-39

1-19

Males

HSRN =601

MSATN =600

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90 -99 49 89 41 33 SO 4280-89 27 71 17 22 83 3160-79 19 66 9 23 71 1840-59 4 60 12 15 70 820-39 5 59 18

1-19 1 *

*Tim number of students M this cell is not largo enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students M this cell.

192

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

GENERAL COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN 313

Chances in 100 of a

MSATN =318

Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

till -! 9 1

60-79 16 86 35 100 2140-59 30 80 16 21 87 2220-39 32 69 11 30 83 19

1-19 21 ti:l (i 57 9

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRX =490

Per-cent

of class

MSATY =492

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

1

8244027

* *90 1878 2372 1648 11

I5

223636

Validity coefficient lessthan .20

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

193

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

DENTAL HYGIENE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grode Point Average Based on ' vsliman

Entering College in Fall of 1968.

Femolis

Per-

H SRN 32

M SATN --:i2

Chances in 100 of aPer-freshman obtaining

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an overage grade of:centile of class of clas

C or Higher B or Higher IC or Higher B or Highei

SO-9960-79

7519

67 17 63 75:i I .16

20

0-59 fi

20-391-19

The number of students in this ern is not large ermugh to produce a reliabh percentage.Nu students in th'a cell.

194

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

DULUTH

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =607

Per-cent

of class

M SATN =593

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Highe. B or Higher

80-0960-7940-5920-39

1-19

513011

71

83 2450 23018

27262314

9

... 3766 550 547 1

16

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN=718

Per-cent

of class

M SATN =698

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

81 2856 1(13030 1

13

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher80-9960-7940-5920-30

1-19

252925156

1726232113

77 3054 943 738 224 2'

*Tile number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable perrentagr.No students in this cell.

195

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

MORRIS

Norms and Expectancy Tables fo, First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1960.

Females

HSRN =170

MSATN = 169

I Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- I freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent i an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class

C or Eigher B or Higher C or Eigher B or Eigher

90-99 .12 IOU 60 23 97 59SO-S9 S2 13 15 SS .1060-79 2.1 tits 7 31 S5 2710-.59 51/ 21) 22 76 1120-39 1 S 50

1-19 1 2

Males

HSRN =235

MSATN=231

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-90 2.1 93 51 16 S6 5080-89 25 73 27 20 SO 3760-79 37 56 5 II 65 1340-59 13 55 -- 19 60 220-39 1 $ 10 56 13

1-19 2 *

*The number o; students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

196

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

CROOKSTON

Norms and Expectancy Tobias for First Year Grado Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 176

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 149

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

80-99 9 87 40 9 77 3860-79 17 87 40 14 86 3840-59 28 80 16 16 71 2920-39 28 61 14 22 82 15

1-19 18 17 39 66 12

The number of students in this cell is nut large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No stl. lents in this cell.

197

AUGSBURG COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN =21I

MSATN=211

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 52 96 58 16 !I8 5780-89 25 91i 17 23 94 2760-70 17 75 :3 19 78 70-59 5 82 I() 86 520-39 I -- 1 *

1-1

Males

Per-

HSRN = 18.1

Per-

MSATN = 18.1

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher l3 or Higher

90-99 26 98 54 2:3 95 5780-89 Is 79 32 16 76 3160-70 :32 73 7 :34 81 640-59 18 55 3 20 57 1420-39 4 0

1-19 1* 2

onto ier of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.Nu stude its in this cell.

198

BETHEL COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average' Based on FreshmenEntering College in Foil of 1968,

Females

HSRN =138

MSATN -= 139

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of :centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 30 93 57 22 100 6089-89 27 89 22 14 95 5760-79 33 711 11 3I 86 120-59 9 58 19 65 1920-39 1 10 71 11

1-19 .5 *

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 101

Per-cent

of class

M SATN =101

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of;

C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 27 89 1 18 Inn 5080-89 22 100 18 12 75 1760-79 62 12 211 73 1240-59 16 31 26 54 820-39 11 36 16 50 12

1-19 1 *

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell,

199

. CARLETON COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN =23

MSATN =24

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per-- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 96 100 32 95 100 3580-89 4 5 *60 -79 --40 -5920 -39

1 -1)

Males

HSRN =72

MSATN = 72

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of :centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 78 91 46 81 91 4880-89 6 * 10 *60-79 17 83 25 6 *40-59 4 *20-39

1 -19

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

200

CONCORDIA COLLEGE MOORHEAD

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN =226

MSATN =221

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 40 09 69 25 98 5980-89 23 88 28 16 86 4960-79 27 79 8 28 90 3740-59 8 47 5 19 81 1920-39 2 9 58 10

1-19 3 *

Males

HSRN =196

MSATN =194

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-90 10 95 63 18 04 5680-89 24 89 32 18 89 3760-79 30 75 19 18 68 2440-59 19 54 3 25 77 1020-39 8 47 11 59 15

1-19 8 50 6

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students it. this cell.

201

CONCORDIA COLLEGE ST. PAUL

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968,

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN= 120

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =120

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade ot:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

462522

52

96 4777 1059 4

** *

27212521

6

97 5296 3673 13GO 4*

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =95

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =97

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

-19

26312212

9

96 5686 748 546

*

2522152118

96 4671 2493 76018

The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

202

DR. MARTIN LUTHER COLLEGE

Norm! and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =54

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =58

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1 -19

39201720

4

100 7691 .9,*

55*

38311710

3

100 5089 3390 10**

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

203

GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =235

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =240

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

90-99SO -89W1-79-40-5920-39

1 -1<)

432528

3

98 - 5186 2274 6

* *

382026

9(3

1

95 5382 2888 1783 980

*

Moles

HSRN =196

MSATN =223

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 29 96 52 32 89 4780-89 27 91 23 16 91 . 2360 -70 31 70 13 23 83 1040-59 12 65 17 80 1520-39 1 * 9 71 10

1-19 1 2 *

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

204

HAMLINE UNIVERSITY

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males

HSRN=110

MSATN =110

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 30 95 57 2G 93 4180-89 25 89 7 16 94 3360-79 27 60 7 28 74 1940-59 12 69 21 70 920-39 7 *

1-19 1 *

Females

HSRN =111

MSATN =111

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 40 98 57 34 100 5880-89 23 88 35 15 88 3560-79 31 82 18 29 88 3140-59 6 * 14 73 720-39 6 *

1-19 2 *

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

205

MACALESTER COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 142

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =-- 152

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

90-90 70 95 46 71 93 4380-89 20 90 17 20 87 2660-79 9 77 15 9 100 1440-5920-39

1-19

Males

HSRN =127

MSATN =139

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 50 94 60 50 88 5280-89 28 78 31 27 76 2760-79 18 52 4 16 68 2740-59 4 * 6 * *20-39 1 *

1 -19

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

206

COLLEGE OF ST. BENEDICT

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN .-- 274

MSATN =268

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 30 00 65 25 100 6580-89 26 100 36 19 94 4460-79 24 05 23 28 96 2740-59 14 87 3 18 98 1020-39 4 83 8 9 83 12

1-19 3 * 1 *

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

COLLEGE OF ST, CATHERINE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN =217

MSATN =218

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 47 98 54 48 95 4580-89 20 86 14 19 76 2260-79 24 69 10 18 82 2240-59 5 64 11 71 420-39 3 * 3 *

1 -19 1 1 *

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage,No students in this cell.

207

ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males

HSRN =286

MSATN =245

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

00-99 30 05 52 28 85 3580-89 23 1)1 14 2; 88 2060-19 27 73 6 20 81 1540-59 10 47 2 16 65 1220-39 3 70 5 76 8

1-19 1 * *

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

ST. MARY'S COLLEGE WINONA

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males

HSRN = 143

MSATN =127

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 17 100 60 18 87 5280-89 13 94 39 15 95 2660-79 31 96 24 20 88 2740-59 23 67 12 19 83 1720-39 11 56 13 76 24

1-19 4 * 14 78 6

*The number of atudenta in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

208

ST. OLAF COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN = 151

MSATN = 151

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

00-09 68 99 54 64 99 518(1 -89 25 92 19 21 97 3660-79 7 70 30 13 79 2140-59 1 2 *20-39 1 *

1-19

Males

HSRN=101

MSAT` =191

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

00-99 47 97 54 41 80 4280-89 25 90 25 25 92 3160-79 21 58 10 22 74 2940-59 4 * 10 65 3020-39 3 * * 1 *

1 -19 -- 1 *

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

209

ST. PAUL BIBLE COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =84

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =85

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainin,,an average grade or:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920 -39

1 -19

26262320

5

86 185942 --29

«

II21212621

* *

72 11505428

The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

COLLEGE OF ST. SCHOLASTICA

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

HSRN =167

MSATN =181

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of a-Per- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class

C or Nigher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher

90-99 31 100 75 14 92 6880-89 25 98 48 21 97 4560-79 29 78 14 20 92 5040-59 5 * * 28 84 2620-39 7 58 11 79 16

1-19 2 * 7 83 17

*The number of students in this cell is no large enough to produce a reliable pereer'age.No students in this cell.

210

COLLEGE OF ST. THOMAS

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968,

Males

HSRN =322

MSATN = 318

Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining

Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :ccntile of class of class

C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B r Higher

00-90 15 98 62 21 82 5080-89 14 91 :33 18 80 2760-79 31 66 21 28 65 1940-59 23 49 4 24 53 320-39 12 44 3 8 42

1 -19 5 38 2 *

sTho number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

211

BEMIDJI STATE COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tablet for First Year Gra6. Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =433

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 372

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

422722

82

91 3469 1444 236 6

*

1924231816

90 3277 2371 1655 934 3

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =463

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =393

Chances in 100 of 1freshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

16263021

8

90 3875 1554 236 1

14 3

1020242917

90 4665 1460 958 432 2

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

212

MANKATO STATE COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Bcsed on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSR= 1099

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 1084

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

31282313

4

00 4472 1546 430 230 4

IS22252214

87 4570 2668 1848 434 4

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 942

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 934

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80 -0960-7940-5920-39

1-19

1423282312

89 4672 2048 641 522 1

1218252420

72 3772 2460 1148 834 3

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

213

MOORHEAD STATE COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1960.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 448

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 461

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher80-9960-7940-5920-391-19

40342052

91 4173 1154 638

*

22262420

9

89 5185 2565 1671 950 2

Male,

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =417

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 421

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

222732163

90 4871 1856 634 350 17

1523252511

92 4972 2968 1546 546 4

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.N0 students in this cell.

214

ST. CLOUD STATE COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =1067

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =1029

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

42341851

90 4373 1657 530 425 8

28242516

6

91 4780 2570 1659 655 G

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =989

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =940

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

22292817

4

87 4171 1248 334.. 315 5

1523272113

82 3565 1458 1250 741 4 .

The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

216

WINONA STATE COLLEGE

Norms and Expectoncy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =416

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =364

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80 -0960-7040-5920-39

1-19

32332212

1

95 5078 2049 548 2

* *

2018252116

94 6085 3370 17(15 1351 4

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =320

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =275

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

80-0960-7940-5920-39

1-19

12273223

7

87 3880 1263 447 424 5

910252822

02 2388 1661 1253 550

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

216

ANOKA-RAMSEY STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEnterin, illego in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 236

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =218

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of;

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

253422154

92 5684 2260 1351 11

* *

919232920

S4 6383 :3176 2471 1658 12

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =379

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =363

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

924282514

76 3362 1160 963 1046 13

816212629

79 2563 1855 1058 1253 5

*The number of students in this cell is not largo enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this coll.

211

AUSTIN STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College In Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-,cent

of class

HSRN =191

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =167

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

:372619126

96 4676 1233 326 446

2221162319

94 3983 3173 1950 834 6

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =258

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =233

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

1519272415

92 4960 651 343 528 8

1318182427

90 4860 1055 751 433 5

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

218

BRAINERD STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1969.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =79

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =79

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7040 -5920-39

1-19

333715133

85 6283 174230

1816162029

100 7177 4677 3163 643 4

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 112

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 116

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-391-19

1424282311

75 31(13 223919

1614172628

72 2862 1250 I023 319

The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a relinble percentage.No students in this cell.

219

FERGUS FALLS STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =88

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =77

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

32321616

5

89 6189 185036

4.

2219172616

94 4780 4085 3155 1033

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =135

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =139

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

814302919

91 3674 214931 520 4

1217192131

88 4467 841 445 728 2

*The num mr of stilt ents in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

220

HIBBING STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fcll of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN ,---- 170

Per-cent

of class

MSAT'N =167

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

:35302311

2

100 5474 1267 367 0

*

282616191/

04 5386 1673 872 1253 10

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 165

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =164

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920 -39

1-19

1722252214

89 2D68 1458 736 630 4

1512232823

83 2578 1070 1344 939 8

*The num ,er of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

221

ITASCA STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 66

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 65

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

CNances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-391-19

29302111

3

90 68100 2164 7*

2017252018

100 6982 3681 1992 833 8

Males

Per-centile

.

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =140

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 127

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

1026232516

93 4364 1753 33413

1217182231

93 2059 1848 946 428 3

The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No studente in this cell.

222

LAKEWOOD STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =195

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =182

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

149

25:22414

5

84 3977 1860 1361 14

*

1020282021

79 4289 2278 1658 1151 10

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =363

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =325

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-391-19

622292814

83 3567 1250 1136 435 6

513262432

76 1257 1955 1149 838 6

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

223

MESABI STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =146

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =156

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-790-5920-391-19

25342714

92 4676 1838 23 .) r

2419232113

89 458(3 2444 1159 933 5

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =200

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =218

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1 -19

1526252212

87 4356 43223 2

8

2216261917

65 2251 9:34 4328

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to prod tee a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

224

METROPOLITAN STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based an FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =77

Per-cent

of class

M SATN =72

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

80-99(10 -7940-5920-39

1-19

I6193521

9

92 4280 1770 ir75 38

*

022222822

* *75 3875 3875 1575 12

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =141

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =135

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

614283319

* *

65 3572 3353 1752 15

7151923

.36

Validity coefficient lessthan .20

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

225

NORMANDALE STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering CcIlege in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 256

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 240

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B. or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

1624301911

95 ,1

77 2363 13:38 1026

1.1

19252220

82 3864 2763 1559 1840 6

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 468

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 435

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

714263220

69 2367 1342 632 833 5

913242629

67 1854 1437 442 531 7

*The number of students in this cell is.not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

226

NORTH HENNEPIN STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

BSAN = 206

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =190

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Hig:Ier B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

23312416

7

89 47(57 1447 441 321 7

1115173126

80 4583 2459 1956 1040 2

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =349

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =303

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

719322913

52 2657 933 434 419

713193130

Validity coefficient lessthan .20

*The number of students in this eell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

227

NORTHLAND STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Pont Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =135

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =129

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-0960-7040-5920-39

1-19

2123201912

100 5471 357 62637 6

1415192231

100 7279 1150 464 7.18

RAINY RIVER STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 105

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =90

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7040-5020-39

1-19

30271818

8

94 6186 2184 1642 5

*

919!7i1

2621

* *

88 3578 2665 2258

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this es/I.

228

ROCHESTER STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRX =408

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =319

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9060 -7940-5920-39

1-19

311

302115

4

77 3460 1148 649 2033

2023241617

7.1 3171 2458 1153 642 7

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 308

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =342

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920.30

1-19

824242717

91 3972 2456 1249 736 6

1411222626

78 3169 1857 1353 7.18 9

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

229

VERMILLION STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 118

Per-cent

of class

MSATN r= 104

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1 -19

1922241916

100 5558 12542221

171.1

222224

84 1680 1348 134312 8

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

230

WILLMAR STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grcde Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =78

Per-cent

of class

M SATN = 80

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade ,,f:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

24262722

1

100 5390 3086 1476 18

1416262810

100 7392 4095 2991 1470 15

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =168

Per-cent

of class

M SATN =195

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

718283017

92 5080 1775 456 248 3

011192832

72 3373 971 1869 758 6

*The number of students in this cell is.not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

231

WORTHINGTON STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Fetviales

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =112

Per-cent

of class

MSATN --- 76

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

Cor Higher B or Higher

SO-9960-7940 -5020-39

1-19

212924196

02 020.1 1848 1528 10*

920202916

*73 33GO 2068 1842

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =230

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =151

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9900-7940-5920-39

1-19

1415233018

85 5874 056 1238 312

1011203028

87 5371 3553 1052 437 5

*The, num ier of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No study to in this cell.

232

BETHANY LUTHERAN

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of W68.

Males and Females Combined

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRX =71

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =77

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1-19

:14272114

4

100 7589 26fill 740

--

2522211:1

13

100 7970 3575 12(i7 730

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

CORBETT COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 21

Per-cent

of class

MSATN =21

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5920-39

1 -19

2414143810

* **** *

2.110141043

* ** ** ***

*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

233

CROSIER SEMINARY

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average cased on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =15

Per-cent

of class

M SATN =10

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaini.7,gan average grade ot:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9900 -71)0-5920-39

1 -19

2227182013

100 70100 75

***

482613

49

100 50100 42

***

*The num wr of students in this cell is not large enough to prod tee a reliable percentage.--No stud, Its in this evil.

234

GOLDEN VALLEY LUTHERAN COLLEGE

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN = 92

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 77

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher8(1 -99(H) -79.10-5920-39

1-19

17252229

7

94 5087 3(170 1578. 7

*

1010162236

92 67*

83 4277 1264 7

Males

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =64

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 54

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining

an average grade of :

C or Higher B or Higher80-996f1 -7940-5(120-39

1- 1 9

519252230

* *92 :1:369 193621

.1

1917)348

*

69 20**

38 8

*The num ter of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.

235

ST. MARY'S MINNEAPOLIS

Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.

Females

Per-centile

Per-cent

of class

HSRN =164

Per-cent

of class

MSATN = 131

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:

C or Higher B or Higher

80-9960-7940-5020-39

1-19

18263019

8

86 4174 1959 452 315

1015312123

77 3975 1573 2052 437 3

*The number of Btu( rnts in this cell is.not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.Nilo students in this cull.

236

FREQUENCY OF STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK (SVIB)SCORES AMONG MINNESOTA HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS*

Edwin Gary Joselyn

Students and their counselors interpreting SVIB profiles oftenwonder how a profile compares with that of a "typical" senior. Thereseems to be a need for some kind of reference or norm to help deter-mine whether a student's interests are quite different from those of hispeers, and various reports of normative data have appeared in theSVIB literature from time to time.**

Tables 1 and 2 present percentage. distributions of letter grades forMinnesota seniors who took SVIB through the Minnesota High SchoolState-Wide Testing Program in 1966-67. Of the 310 schools which usedSVIB with their seniors through the Program that year, 250 admin-istered the instrument to all senior boys and 245 to all senior girls, atotal of 8,168 boys and 7,263 girls. Only seniors from schools whichtested all the boys or all the girls are included in the distributions inTables 1 and 2. This was done to obtain a better cross-section ofMinnesota seniors since schools which use SVIB with less than theentire class tend to test only brighter, "college-bound," seniors.

There may be some bias in these data, however, since the schoolswhose seniors are included represent a higher proportion of smaller,out-State communities. Nevertheless, because of the large N's (aboutone-quarter of the entire Minnesota class of 1967) and because thedata include only schools where all seniors were tested, these tablesare believed to be a good representation of Minnesota seniors.

These tables should help students and their counselors spot waysin which their interests are alike or different from other Minnesotaseniors. For example, "A" scores on the Social Worker or Ministerscales are much rarer among boys than "A" scores on the Farmer orPrinter scales, and are probably more important.

High school senior boys tend to get high scores in Group IV, theTechnical-Outdoor group, while many girls score high on the Secre-tary, Office Worker, and Housewife scales. Both boys and girls gettheir lowest scores on the Social Services areas. (Other studies haveshown that men and women receive considerably higher scores in theSocial Services area by age 25.) Notice that there are few scales onwhich many girls get very high scores. "A's" other than in the Sec-retarial and Housewife scales are fairly rare for girls.

Reprinted from Student Counseling Bureau Newsletter, University of Minne-sota, Vol. 20, No. 1, February, 1968.

**See Layton, W. L. Counseling Use of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank,Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1958, for distributions of SVIBscores for Minnesota seniors of 1955. Some of these tables are reproduced inthe State-Wide Manual, Counseling and the Use of Tests, Revised.

237

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON STRONG VOCATIONALINTEREST BLANK GIVEN TO 8168 MALE MINNESOTA

HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, FALL, 1966GRADE SCORES

Occupational Scales C C B- B B+ AI. 1)entist 11 10 IS IS II)

Osteopath .36 23 20 13 7 3Veterinarian ... 11 16 It) 20- 24Physician.. .37 20 16 12 7 7Psychiatrist. S6 6 .1 2 I

Psychologist. SO 11 5 3 1 1

Biologist 62 14 II 15 3 311. .Architect 26 15 IS

_lo 13 141:itliiiinatician .

P chysiist(57G I

151 5

10 611 S

23

I

2Chemist -I-1 f S 13 I I 7 7Engineer. 29 11 15 115 12 14

III. Produvlion Momigiq 11 14 21 22 17 11Army Ofliver . 11 10 15 S 6 3Air Force (1fliver 30 20 19 15 II) 7

IV. Carpenter . 19 9 11 1 13 3SForest Service Man . 40 14 17 -1 7 SFarmer . 6 5 In I 16 52N 1 ath-Science Teacher 21 20 20 7 SPrinter 5 0 10 :1 II:oi 5 3Polieeman 33 20 20 5

_, 4 ...

V. Personnel Director.. SO 9 0 :1 2 I

Public Administrator 63 13 12 0 3 3Rehabilitat ion Counselor ...... . . 74 II 7 4 2 2V Al ('A Secretary .55 15 10 S 6 (i/social W orker 7!1 8 5 4 2 3Social Science Teacher :15 18 17 13 S SSchool Superintendent 90 5 2 2 1 0

Iiiiister3

3 2 I I I

\'I. LibrarianArtist

(5)' )

2'1518

7 518 16

0I1

0-...,

13Itisiv Performer 8 12 23 25 10 16

Music 'reacher 00 17 12 5 :1 :1

VII. C.P.A. Owner 76 11 7 1 I 1

VIII. Senior C.P.A. -12 IS 16 12 7 5Accountant 50 20 15 (5 5 3Office Worker. 24 21 21 16 8 10Purchasing Agent . S 9 12 18 21 33Banker 19 13 19 22 14 13Pharmacist 12 13 23 21 19 12Mortician ') 12 21 21 22 16

IX. Sales Manager 26 2:1 22 15 8 15

Real Estate Salesman 3 8 16 22 26 27Life Insurance Salesman ..24 22 22 1(5 9 6

X. Advertising Man 215 21 21 1(5 10 7Lawyer 31 24 18 15 8 5Author-Journalist 21 22 21 17 I 1 9

XI. President-Manufacturing 40 22 19 10 7

STANDARD SCORESNon-Occupational Scales 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 60-69 60-69 70-79

Specialization Level... II 38 38 II 2 0 0Occupational Level... 0 1) 17 -17 30 60 0Masculinity-Feminity. . 0 22 G 23 47 2i 1

Academic Achievement. 28 28 21 14 7 2 0

238

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON STRONG VOCATIONALINTEREST BLANK GIVEN TO 7263 FEMALE

MINNESOTA HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, FALL, 1966

Occupational ScalesGRADE SCORES

C C+ 13- 13 B+ A

1. Alusie '1'enclier (l0 10 11 3Music Performer 3(1 20 IS 13 S

II. Artist 35 21 22 12 .7 4Author 0 20 18 S 2Librarian 113. 16 II 5 2 2

. English Teacher 85 5 4 :3 1 2

111.- Social Science Teacher 85 7 3 2 1 1

YWCA Seerctary. .06 2 1 0 (1 0Social Worker. 58 1S 13 0 3 2Psychologist.. 92 4 2 1 I 0Lawyer 8(1 10 5 3 I 1

Iv. Life insurance salesman 88 7 .3 I 0 0V. Buyer 28 21 22 15 S li

13usilies Education Teacher 20 1.1 16 21 -13 15Stenogra idler-Secretary 2 1(1 22 27 38Office. Worker 1 3 4.1, 16 Di 44

VI. Elementary Teacher 11 15 23 20 10 1 4Housewife 2 4 7 18. 23 Itillo 11W Ee0110 MI VS- Teacher 45 .19 10 11 0 2Dietitian 31) 27 21 16 . 5 2

VII. Physical EducationTeacher (High School) 36. 25 22 12 4 0

PhySical EducationTeacher (College). 81 9- 5 3 1 (1

Occupational Therapist 49 19 12 I 1 0 :3Physical Therapist..

.Nurse30

.572314

1713

147

S 76 :3

VIII. Physician 75 12 7 3 2Dentist 5tl 24 9 5 2 1

Laboratory Technician 41 20 20 10 5 4

IX. Alath-Science Teacher. 57 17 13 8 3 3Engineer 70 12 5' 2 1 ' 1

STANDARD SCORENon-Occupational Scales 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 60-69 60-69 70-79

Afasenlinity-Feminity . 2 6 12 37 :32 10 1

Academic Achievement. 15 35 27 15 6 1 0

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORY (MVII)PROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING SUCCESS NORMS FORMINNESOTA AREA VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOLS*

Description of the Profiles

The MVII Raw Score isplotted along the left side of 05'each page. A bar for each ofthe nine area scales representsthe range of scores for stu- 8,1'; ALP

dents who have successf ullycompleted courses in thatarea. The bold part of the barrepresents the range of scoresfor the middle two-thirds ofthese students. The light por- ;lc

lion of the bar represents themiddle 90 per cent of thegroup. That is, 90 per cent of 5':; ilrthe students in the ProjectMini -Score research who successfully completed courses in a particulararea had MVII scores which fell between the top and bottom ends ofthe light bars, and two-thirds of the students had Aptitude scoreswhich fell between the top and bottom of the bold portion of the bars.

674';

The nine "Area Keys" of the MVII are as follows:

H-1: MechanicalIndicates interests in mechanical things, machine operationand design, or about home repairs of mechanical and simpleelectrical gadgets.

I-1-2: Health ServiceExpresses interests in medical and hospital services, activitiesand occupations, or in working in medical, biological orchemical laboratories.

H-3: Office WorkIndicates interests in general clerical work and office machineoperation, bookkeeping and accounting, and office manage-ment practices.

H-4: ElectronicsThis key expresses an interest in the maintenance, operation

°Please refer to Page 101 for a discussion of the Project MINI-SCORE Projectand a description of the norm groups.

240

and construction of electronic equipment, and the repair andconstruction of electrical systems and devices.

H-5: Food ServiceIndicates interests in the preparation of food and menuplanning.

H-6: CarpentryThis cluster deals primarily with interests relating to car-pentry, cabinet making and furniture construction.

H-7: Sales-OfficeTwo clusters of interests are indicated here. The larger dealswith a variety of verbal activities, while the other relates toaesthetic interests. High scores are made by retail sales clerks,new-car salesmen, printers, and persons engaged in officework.

H-8: Clean HandsIndicates an interest in those occupations which possess"clean hands" kinds of activities.

H-9: OutdoorsThis key reflects an interest in athletics and other outdooractivities.

241

A

\V

S

22

21

IT

111

15

1.1

11

III

MVII

Air Conditioning, Refrigeration and Appliance Repair

i.---- -4 i

1I

T1

1

I

II

4-

1

fl

\I(1 h. 111 Ith (Id!Sei. 11o11.

242

Sri. rotr)',di. i Mut

11.311,1,

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCE REPAIR

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

22 9921 0421) S719 8018 74

OffWk

Mee-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

22212019

18

17 64 99 17

16 52 96 1615 41 92 15

I4 31 85 99 OS 1.1

I3 29 74 08 II9 96 13

12 22 09 90 113 Il7 97 91 12

11 18 )S 98 51 191 96 79 1I1(1 Ili 98 98 16 114 89 00 61 10

9 11 06 97 3S 91 79 98 98 52 98 I 1 90 90 99 87 70 97 95 37 87 I) S4 92 I!) 84 62 02 89 24 7

6 7 SO 84 12 77 52 S7 80 17 6

5 5 77 77 8 G2 40 SO 71 9-I 4 69 69 4 46 30 68 60 3 4

3 4 54 .57 2 311 19 56 39 3

2 1 37 39 I 25 9 1 21 2I 2 20 2(1 11 3 2S 11) 1

0 6 5 1 10 2 0

N =56 N= 51; N-56 ti =.54 \ =55 5 =511 N=5fi s =56Its° m 3, H m =3.1n M= 1(1.'24 M =4.:14 M (1.05 M =211 M 3.K6 S,SOSD -4.42 SD-2.80 SI) 2.53 SD =3.48 SD =3,10 3.01 SD 2.114 SD 2.22 SD-2.50

243

II

NS:

I )

. 5

.1

MVII

Mechanical Drafting and Design

sik, IL II IiI (tivl v. \ I.,

Elcc- Sd ISS, IS. entry 41 I.

244

.4111

Iliulds (lour>

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT M1N1 -SCORE TRAINING NORMS

MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGN

Raw Health Off El ec- Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Sery entry Off. Hands doors Score

22212019

99968981

22212019

18 73 99 1817 65 99 99 1716 57 99 99 99 99 99 1615 48 99 99 98 09 99 00 1514 30 99 00 95 09 98 99 14

13 31 99 09 90 119 9.1 99 99 13

12 25 99 98 86 98 88 99 94 1211 20 98 97 81 07 80 99 83 11

10 15 97 96 75 95 70 09 69 109 12 96 94 67 91 57 07 99 55 9

9 94 92 55 87 48 1)4 98 41 87 7 S9 89 44 80 39 89 05 25 7

6 Si 86 :14 73 29 84 88 14 65 4 76 78 24 64 20 77 76 7 54 3 64 68 16 51 12 64 59 4 43 2 52 57 9 33 6 47 38 2 32 1 39 42 4 17 3 29 20 1 21 1 24 25 1 6 1 15 6 1 1

0 1 8 8 1 1 5 1 1 (1

N=251 N=251 N =251 N =251 N =251 N=251 N =251 N=251 N=25tM =14.66 M =3.32 M=3.23 M =7.69 4.4.59 M =8.06 M =3.52 NI =3.71 M = 8.56SL) =4.56 SD =2.88 SD=3.00 SD=3.50 SD=2.86 SD=3.22 SD=2.40 SD= 1.84 SD=2.36

245

2.;

211

111

)s

it I( i

,115

1 I

1,3

1.1

0

MVII

Electronics

-

.M.r. h. 1111th. () I. 11 I.. t?

211

p.tivrv. entr

1)11t

OIL II:Bids I low,

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

ELECTRONICS

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

22 9921 90

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

20 91) 119 2019 SO 99 19

IS 08 99 1817 58 1)1) 91) 94 17

16 49 99 911 71) 16

15 :38 91) 99 03 99 91) 15

14 29 99 119 .18 911 99 99 14

13 23 91) 911 34 99 99 98 13

12 17 99 US 21 98 99 1)3 12

II 13 98 98 11 97 98. 85 11

1(1 II 95 1)7 7 99 99 117 99 71 1))

1) 1) 91 95 5 93 99 96 99 53 1)

8 5 87 93 4 89 95 93 98 38 87 4 SO 00 3 84 89 110 94 26 76 3 73 80 2 71) 81 SS 811 15 65 2 64 81 1 74 72 81 80 S 54 2 54 72 I 92 01 6 65 4 4

3 I 41 50 I 44 48 52 .16 I 32 I 28 38 I 27 33 31 24 21 I 16 22 1 1:3 16 13 8 I

0 1 4 7 3 4 2 2 0

5 =202 N =202 =202 N =202 N =202 N =202 N=202 N =202 :4 =2o2M = 15.50 M =4.20 M =3.20 M= 13.73 M =3.96 M =3.5:3 M =3.40 M =3.45 M =8.59s 0= 4.12 S = 3.19 SD= 2.90 81)=2.69 SD = 2.96 Sll =2.4 I SD=2.51 S D = 1.92 SD= 2.17

247

22

21

211

17

it 16

.115

1.1

(1

5

4

3

2

1

0

MVII

Automotive

M cli. Be. Ith off. Eke- Food Cirp-Sc V. k. Iron, Serb'. CII ry

248

Sa es Cl out.Off. ha Ills doors

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

AUTOMOTIVE

Raw HealthScore Much Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221201918

9789756149

2221201918

17 40 99 99 1716 32 99 99 1615 25 99 96 99 99 1511 19 99 90 99 99 99 1413 15 99 84 99 97 95 1312 11 99 75 98 94 84 1211 8 99 99 64 97 89 68 1110 6 99 99 53 96 82 99 99 51 109 4 99 98 41 95 71 99 99 34 98 2 98 97 30 91 60 99 99 21 87 2 97 95 21 85 49 98 97 12 76 1 95 93 14 77 38 96 92 7 65 1 90 90 8 67 26 92 84 3 54 1. 82 83 5 54 15 86 71 1 43 1 70 74 3 38 8 77 53 1 32 1 53 57 1 23 3 62 31 1 21 32 35 1 9 1 39 12 1 1

0 10 12 2 1 12 3 1 0

N=.495 N=995 N=495 N=405 N=495 N=995 N=495 N=905 N=995M=17.12 M=2.23 M=2.20 M=9.67 M=4.10 M=7.18 M=1.89 M=3.05 M=9.75SD= 3.75 SD -2.02 SD=2.36 SD=3.25 SD=2.79 SD=2.97 8D=1.83 SD=1.81 SD=2.21

249

MVII

Carpentry

:22

'21

19

itI7

A

11e, Ith (711. 1.4,0(1

sc Wk.

250

(y

Sales C:Ica t ()W-on. 1 lands (1:,

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

CARPENTRY

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

Cuff Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

922221 98 z120 92 2019 81 19

18 G9 1817 60 99 17111 52 99 91) 99 99 16

15 44 99 99 119 94 99 15

11 36 99 99 99 85 118 1.1

13 211 99 97 99 71 04 13

12 22 99 98 1)5 98 54 . SG 12

11 IS 99 97 93 98 139 70 ii10 14 98 96 87 116 99 91) 49 10

9 10 98 94 80 04 20 98 32 9

S il 96 92 70 1)1) 11 08 99 20 S

7 6 94 S9 57 S(; 7 96 97 13. 76 4 88 85 42 81 4 114 90 S 05 2 81 70 25 75 2 90 77 4 5

4 1 74 72 14 6.1 2 S2 .59 2 4

3 1 65 GO 9 40 1 72 39 I 3

2 1 50 -16 5 32 I 55 21 2

1 I 31 2S 2 15 34 8 I

0 14 9 I 4 12 I ()

=181 N=lS Nll N=181 N=I81 N=18I N=I81 N=-181 N=181M= 4.9O M=2.60 NI =3.00 NI =0.75 NI =3.7! M = I1.3 I M=2.20 NI NI =9.73SD= 4.2t1 Sp =25 D=1O D=2.81 SD =1;10 81).= 2.69 SD=2.I0 SO= I.78 SI)=2.28

251

22

19

18

17

AIs

12

11

11 10

9

8

(1

.3

2

1

0

MVII

Practical Nursing

Mcc11 11(7161 Off. (0 Carp. Saks Clran Out-Sm., Wk. troll. VII IT Off, I doors

252

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI -SCORE TRAINING NORMS

PRACTICAL NURSING

Raw HealthScore M ech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

222120

222120

19 96 9)) 1018 84 90 1817 60 9)) 98 1719 45 99 .95 1615 29 99 91 99 1514 10 08 80 91) 91) 14

13 99 13 97 78 99 05 1312 99 1) 95 66 99 01 99 1211 99 (1 92 54 90 84 90 1110 09 4 89 44 99 74 99 99 109 90 2 83 35 06 63 09 90 98 19) 2 75 25 00 49 97 07 87 99 1 65 99 16 81 34 92 92 76 98 1 54 91) 10 98 23 80 84 (1

5 97 I 2 97 6 50 15 63 71 595 31 93 31 8 13 55 4

3 91 20 83 2 16 3 25 34 3

2 83 12 65 1 7 1 9 15 21 64 6 40 1 2 1 2 4 1

(1 26 1 12 1 1 1 1 0

N=5119 N=509 N=509 N=509 N=500 N=500 N =509 N =509 N =50051 = I h .75 M=5.91 M =1.01 M=10.39 M =5.11 M =8.13 NI 4 ,4 0 M =3.97

SD = 1.52 SD--.-`2.83 SD=3.31 SD = 1.44 SD=3.38 SD=2.I I 0=2.78 SD=1.80 SD= 1.91

253

A

11

S

C

23

21

20

19

Th

17

1,1

13

12

11

10

9

S

5

3

2

0

MVII

Printing and Graphic Arts

Nlerli, I Iv:11th Off. El T FIX,C1 C qi- CIC:111 01.1t-SITV. trt ii. Sr et try Off. I 1 :mils doors

254

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTS

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery22

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221 98 21

20 96 2019 94 191 99 19

18 91 19) 117 99 IS17 80 99 97 09 1716 82 99 97 99 98 1015 80 98 97 97 07 91) 15

14 76 97 96 1)6 1)6 97 14

13 70 97 96 92 96 07 99 110 13

12 02 97 95 87 91 96 99 1)7 12

11 55 97 91 82 92 90 1)7 91 11

19 41) 96 86 76 91 S1 95 99 00 10

9 10 92 81 71 87 72 93 97 8.1

S 30 84 76 62 82 6.1 86 94 f4 87 23 76 7.1 51 74 5.1 76 86 63 7li 17 71 09 1 65 II 70 75 .19 6

13 65 511 410 57 30 111 60 32 54 10 56 49 19 16 24 -44 43 18

(1 II 37 12 :12 12 27 25 II 3

2 2 23 25 7 18 5 16 2I 1 11 1i 2 9 I II0 2 5

N =8051=10.6951)-4.91

N :--- 90M =4.50

S1)=3.41

N soM = 5.09

SD= 1.17

N =81;51 =7.24

S1)=3.93

N =SOM =5.15

51)=3.419

N =911M =6,76

514-3.23

N = 8051=4.70

;-10 =2.s6

N ,-.F.11

M=4.56s1)=2.09

N so51=6.39

81)=2.55

255

ANV

S

0K

22

21

20

10

38

17

10

35

11

1:3

12

11

10

8

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

MVII

Architectural Drafting

M Lt. Health Off. Elve. nd Carp. S: los lit all Old-Serv. W k. tron. Son'. in ry II. I lands doors

256

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING

Raw Health Off Elec- Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Serv. entry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

99OS

2221

20 96 2010 112 19

18 87 18

17 79 17

10 60 16

15 54 97 15

14 43 90 99 91) 92 98 14

13 35 95 97 117 88 04 13

12 31 92 92 06 77 92 1211 27 99 92 87 90 67 86 11

1(1 25 07 01 80 90 57 69 100 21 05 01) 72 92 46 911 08 51 0

8 13 91 88 64 86 31) 94 95 38 87 8 85 85 52 82 31 88 93 26 .76 S 80 81 36 73 23 83 87 16 65 7 74 74 22 58 12 75 75 9 5

4 6 08 61 12 50 5 59 64 6 4

3 4 62 47 8 41 1 40 50 3 3

2 2 45 34 3 25 24 26 1 2

1 1 21 19 10 13 7 1

0 5 5 2 5 1 0

N=53 N=53 N=63 N.53 N=53 N.53 N=53 N=53 N=53M=13.49 M =3.2S M =3.98 M =7.26 M=4.45 M =9.15 M =3.70 M =3.53 M=8.60SD= 4.64 S1)=2.84 S.9=3.55 SD= SI)=3.09 SD =3.2.5 SD=2.30 SD =2.07 81)=2.59

257

2(1

MVII

Chefs and Cooks

9

S

I.

oilSo: v. 11 k,

Elev. (:arp- Sales :lean hd-ti on. St.rv, entry 014 !lands doors

258

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

CHEFS AND COOKS

Raw Health Off Elec- Food Carp- sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Sery entry Off. Hands doors Score

22 \ 2221 08 2120 07 96 21)

19 97 99 84 1918 05 98 75 1817 93 08 ((2 1716 93 98 99 09 43 I615 92 98 08 97 1I3 I S

(4 90 96 98 114 28 911 14

13 87 04 96 9:1 22 DS 08 13

12 82 91 93 93 16 97 !)(1 12

1 1 79 88 89 00 1 3 0:1 04 I I

I0 75 84 84 87 9 84 03 95 98 109 70 75 76 84 6 74 02 97 92 9S ((4 70 70 8(1 5 65 88 95 83 8

56 69 66 75 3 52 79 0(1 7:s 76 52 ((3 111 68 2 38 64 78 60 (1

5 46 55 54 50 2 26 47 60 .16 54 35 45 48 46 2 1(1 :14 13 :10 .1

3 27 31 40 32 . 2 7 28 29 14 32 21 17 27 16 1 2 22 16 -1 2'1 14 10 14 4 2 12 7 I 1

0 5 4 5 1 1 2 2 0

N =61M=6.82

S1)=5.34

N =fitN1 =5,66

S1)=4.211

N =61m=5.33

S1)=4.12

5=51M =5,33

SI) =3.75

N =51M=15.46tin=1.611

5=51M =6.417

SI)=2.78

N=61M =5.011

SI) = US

N =61M =4.35

SI)=2.111

N =61M

S1)=2.23

259

A

\V

II

2:3

22

21

20

10

Is

17

16

15

/

13

12

11

J0

9

S

(i

1

0

MVII

Welding

I. liraitli oil. ElirjS. N1 k, troth

Pond Carp- Sa es (Is ass 0 tt-Sere, entry 0 F. I ISIS doors

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

WELDING

Raw HealthScare Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-trop,

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

222120

222120

989080

19 70 09 1918 60 99 1817 50 99 99 1716 43 99 99 1615 35 99 97 99 99 1514 28 99 90 04 98 97 09 1413 23 99 09 91 97 05 95 1312 19 99 99 85 07 91 87 1211 1(1 99 98 78 96 85 73 11

10 13 99 97 71 05 77 90 56 1(1

9 10 98 96 61 94 68 99 1 08 8 95 05 48 91 57 09 98 28 S

7 6 91 93 37 85 45 08 95 18 76 5 87 89 28 76 33 94 89 10 fi

5 3 80 84 19 65 22 88 78 5 5

4 1 72 78 10 53 13 79 64 2 4

3 1 60 60 5 38 6 (i6 48 1 3

2 1 46 55 2 23 2 51 29 1 21 1 29 33 1 0 1 32 12 1

0 1 10 11 1 1 1 9 3 0

N=254 N =254 N=254 N =254 N=254 N=254 N =254 N=254 N =254M=15.89 M=2.85 M=2.55 M = 8.2 M=4.35 M=7.50 M=2,34 51 =3.35 M=9.35SD = 4.60 SD= 2.64 81)=2.73 SD=3.35 80 =3.07 SD= 3.08 SD = 1.07 SI)=2.01 81)=2.41

261

ltA

S

21.

20

19

18

17

I Ii

15

1

113

12

11

11.1

I)

S

5

3

1

0

MVII

Farm Equipment Mechanics

L

Mt: 41. I Iv ilth OIL 1'4 mil %up. Sa (I an (1 :Sete. 111. hit, Si v. entry f I I. iii d101,

262

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICS

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp-entry

Sales Clean Out- RawOff. Hands doors Score

2221201918

2221

2019

18

9991

796753

17 40 99 91) 1716 30 99 118 1615 23 09 96 1514 19 99 90 99 99 1.1

13 14 99 81 99 97 1)5 1312 III 09 7(1 98 114 85 12

11 8 98 67 97 89 99 67 11

10 7 97 53 95 76 99 48 10

9 6 97 40 92 62 99 31 9

8 3 90 99 30 88 53 99 99 16 87 3 95 98 23 83 45 99 97 8 7

6 3 93 94 17 76 33 117 90 6 (1

5 3 91 85 1(1 68 24 94 78 4 5

4 2 87 77 .5 56 15 86 61 2 4

3 1 76 65 3 38 8 69 47 I 3

2 1 62 50 1 22 3 51 30 1 21 40 29 10 1 35 10 1

0 12 8 2 1 14 1 0

=72 N-=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72M=111.90 -=2.14 N1=2:11 M =9.61 M =4.2 M 7.47 M=2.11 M =3.37 M =9.55

D=3.93 SD=2.75 90=1.119 90=3.31 91)=2..m7 80=3.95 90=1.97 90=1.86 813 =2.19

263

23

22

21

20

19

38

17

16A 15IV

11

13

12

O fl

B 10

8

7

6

54

3

2

0

MVII

Plumbing and Sheet Metal

Mech. Health Off.Sere. k.

El Food C: rp So to Clean 0 it-I rim. Sere, entry Off, I lands doors

264

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

PLUMBING AND SHEET METAL

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

222120

909083

222120

11) 73 99 1918 65 98 1817 57 98 1716 47 98 90 1615 40 98 08 99 1514 37 98 96 97 96 1413 33 9P 91) 89 99 96 92 1312 31 98 98 80 98 95 85 1211 28 98 OS 60 98 02 71 11

10 21 98 97 54 98 86 55 109 13 98 96 47 95 71 39 1)

8 .5 98 95 40 92 54 24 87 2 95 92 32 88 40 98 98 10 76 2 88 86 24 81 20 92 04 10 (1

5 1 83 77 16 70 11 82 85 4 54 70 6i; 12 57 9 65 69 2 4

3 6:3 59 10 46 6 54 53 1 3.2 49 54 4 30 2 46 33 21 :33 30 13 30 13 1

0 12 10 4 10 3 0

N=49 N=49 N=49 N=40 N=49 N=49 N=40 N=49 N=49M =15.27 M=2.75 :A =2,88 M =8.80 M=3.82 M =7.65 M =2.73 M=3.02 M =9.55SD= 4.98 0=3,18 t1D= 2,93 SD=3,55 SD=2.74 SD =2.72 SD=2.17 SD=1.77 SD=2.50

265

A

S

It

2.3

22

21

19

IS

17

16

II15

12

IL

9

S

4

3

1

0

MVII

Fluid Power Technology

Mech. 11(.. ilt11serv, 11 k.

Ft.oci Carp.tr <n. Fen.. .etitr

888

Sales ()'t-Off, door,

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2'd,

212019181716

99918072584537

22212019-181716

15 28 118 99 1514 22 93 98 1413 19 85 95 1312 16 99 78 97 85 1211 11 98 71 94 73 1110 6 98 97 56 92 99 56 10

9 3 94 95 40 98 81 98 34 I)

1 91 93 26 03 66 98 18 87 88 01 17 80 53 97 98 8 76 81 87 9 84 41 95 92 4 (1

5 70 82 . 2 73 30 89 77 2 54 59 77 60 18 81 59 .1

3 50 68 95 10 72 47 32 38 51 27 5 58 35 21 24 30 12 38 18 1

0 8 10 2 13 4 0

N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=M N=51M =10.63 M =3.49 M =2.71 M =9.75 M =3.67 N1=13.63 M =2.12 M=3.20 M=9.78SD=3.58 SD= 2.81. SD=2.75 SD=2.60 SD=2.31 SD=2.63 SD=2.14 SD= 1.99 SD=2.00

267

A

NV

'at

22

2 I

19

IS

17

15

12

11

III

9

Ii

5

1

1

II

MVII

Dental Assistant

Niceli. I li lth 1)13.

St ay. \\I:.E1 I..< ml I :arp- So. i.s Chan

Serv. tlitry Oil. I lands d ilirs

268

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI -SCORE TRAINING NORMS

DENTAL ASSISTANT

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp-entry

Sales Clean Out- RawOff. Hands doors Score

222120

222120

19 99 99 1918 I/5 9S 1817 90 97 1716 S5 93 1615 79 89

.9894 15

14 69 S7 89 1413 55 83 85 98 1312 45 79 76 %I 1211 37 72 65 99 92 11

10 99 20 59 59 96 80 109 98 18 45 99 49 93 72 99 9S 9S 13 36 98 34 87 58 93 S

7 98 9 27 97 20 7", 46 81 98 76 98 5 17 94 15 64 36 62 90 6

5 98 4 9 91) 13 17 23 40 79 54 94 4 6 86 10 25 13 26 62 4

3 87 2 0 7t 7 10 5 13 30 32 77 6 59 5 4 3 18 2I (H 5 32 2 2 5 I

0 211 2 S 1 0

N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52M=1.15 M =12.15 M=0.57 M =2.12 M =4.22 M =5.44 M =727 M =5.53 M =3.58

SD= 1.77 SD=3.03 SD= 3.97 SD=1.92 SD=3.1i1 SD = 2.14 SD= 2.05 SD= 1.77 SD= 1.60

269

A

NV

C

0II

G

5

(I

MVII

Diesel Mechanics

:do 01. Health Olf El T. Fi IA Carp- Sa es Chan Out-Sere, 11k. nun. Sere. en Ty Of. Hands doors

270

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCO2E TRAINING NORMS

DIESEL MECHANICS

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

93SO

2221

20 (12 99 2019 47 99 19

18 41 99 1817 35 99 1716 28 99 99 1615 24 99 97 99 1511 20 99 91 09 9013 11 90 79 99 96 97 1312 11 01) 99 72 98 92 87 1211 6 99 99 67 97 85 67 11

10 3 93 99 54 97 76 16 109 3 96 09 42 90 70 99 30 98 3 94 118 32 94 61 99 99 18 87 2 91 97 25 88 46 96 98 10 7

1 87 -96 18 78 31 1 ", 95 4 65 81 92 10 64 21 91 88 1 5

77 86 4 50 14 86 81 1 43 70 76 1 40 0 78 66 32 56 61 26 4 67 41 2

35 41 12 46 17 1

0 12 15 3 17 4 0

N=69 N=60 N=ti9 N=69 N=69 N=69 N=69 N=69 N=69M =17.78 M =2.59 M=1.93 M=0.58 M=4.17 M =7.42 M=1.77 M=2.62 M =9.00SD =3.80 SD=2.89 SD=2.10 SD=3.29 SD= 3.10 SD=3.09 SD=2.04 SD= 1.77 SD= 1.95

271

A

S

fi

5

4

3

I)

2

MVII

Cosmetology

Mcdt, 11e IthSta.

Off. 17.1ec. Food Carp. Sa es Oval' Out-Wk. trim. St re. retry 0 1. 11111d N doors

272

1

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

COSMETOLOGY

RawScore Mech

HealthSery

OffWk Iron,

FoodSery

Carp-entry

SalesOff,

Clean Out- RawLIP: nds doors Score

22 2221 99 2120 99 011 2019 9!) 90 99 19

IS 00 .. 97 98 1817 99 99 94 97 1716 99 07 01 94 911 1615 98 95 87 89 99 15

14 08 92 SI 83 99 14

13 98 87 75 99 74 011 99 13

i2 98 83 70 99 66 98 97 12

11 98 76 64 9!) 58 96 94 99 11

10 97 66 55 99 47 94 90 00 09 10

9 06 58 . .5 98 38 89 84 08 08 9

8 06 51 38 97 30 79 73 9.! 09 87 05 3 32 97 21 66 1 83 93 76 93 35 26 94 14 51 47 64 811 6

5 91 28 21) 88 10 33 33 42 73 54 87 21 14 78 6 18 19 94 53 4

3 80 i 5 0 62 3 8 8 13 41 32 (i7 ,.) 5 38 I 3 3 6 23 21 IS 3 2 16 I 1 2 9 1

0 18 I 4-- I 1 1 1 9-

N =249 N =219 N =249 N =249 N =219 N=245 N =249 N =249 N =249M=1.94 M =7.01 M=9.45 M =2.94 M =10.21 M =11.10 11=(.42 M=5.24 M =3.71

89=2.94 59 =4.18 S1)=4.58 80=1.98 S9=3,78 89=2.35 SI)=1.1.65 50 =1.80 S1)=2.09

273

MVII

Machine Shop

S

am.umnialum

__________().rlec, ttml

tton. Soy, entry

274

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

MACHINE , SHOP

Raw Health. OffScore Mech Sery Wk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Chan Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

222120

088978

2221

19 65 99 99 1018 61) 99 99 1817 39 99 99 99 1716 30 99 99 99 90 1615 23 99 99 97 99 1514 16 09 99 95 08 99 1413 1) 99 99 92 99 04 93 1312 8 99 98 84 98 SS 82 1211 7 90 98 75 98 79 90 09 68 11

10 0 99 98 65 96 70 99 99 52 109 4 98 97 53 95 59 99 99 34 98 4 98 96 44 92 48 09 98 20 87 3 97 93 3,5 89 37 08 94 11 71) 2 94 89 21 83 25 97 88 5 65 1 88 83 12 75 17 94 79 2 5

4 1 80 76 6 63 11 89 66 1

3 1 70 65 3 46 6 80 45 1 32 1 54 50 1 27 3 54 25 21 1 31 29 1I 1 39 10 1

0 1 9 9 .2 13 2 0

NIno3

SD =o.u2

N=I66M=2.40

SD=2.45

N=185M=2.74

SD=2.80

N=1031M =8.07

SD=3.13

N=153M = 3.n

SD=2.62

N=185M =8.15

S D=3.14

N=156M=1.80

BD =1.81

N=150M=3.413

SD=2.01

N=365M=0.82

SD=2,18

275

11

A

.13

22

21

20

U

111

1.1

1:3

12

It10

9

5

.1

:3

2

(1

MVII

Secretarial Training

Med:. I Ithh 1.Soy, W14.

Elm. 1,, od Go. Sales (11,,an tha-I I nfl. Ser.*. entry (111, 1 lutitk driors

276

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYi'!"_OJECT MINI -SCORE TRAINING iNORMS

SECRETARIAL TRAINING

Raw Health OffScore Mech Sery Wk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

2221

20 99 96 2019 91) 99 S7 09 1918 99 99 78 09 1817 09 98 68 99 1716 99 96 57 09 90 1615 1)0 95 -17 09 98 99 151.1 09 93 39 99 96 99 99 1413 09 90 :31 09 04 09 99 1312 99 86 23 09 110 99 99 99 1211 99 82 20 00 83 09 97 99 99 11

10 99 77 13 99 7.1 97 94 97 09 100 99 71 11 99 63 93 89 91 99 98 98 65 8 09 51 88 80 81) 98 87 98 58 6 99 :39 79 68 (13 96 76 98 50 4 97 28 64 53 43 92 65 97 41 3 04 19 46 36 24 84 54 9(1 :12 2 84 11 30 23 12 68 43 04 23 I 90 6 15 12 5 46 3

2 88 14 1 -12 4 5 -I 1 25 2

1 72 0. I 18 .2 2 1 1 9 1

0 30 2 1 4 1 1 1 0

N =739 N=739 N =739 N =739 N=730 N =739 N=730 M =780 N =730M = .84 M =6.71 M =1.1..10 M=2.52 M =7.93 M=5.34 M=5,95 11=0.33 M =3.31

SD=1.87 SD=4.35 SD= 4.14 SD= 1.7.5 SD=3.23 SD= 2.24 Sll =2.44 SD= 1.91 SD = 1.80

277

Ft

A

S

0It

23

22

21

20

R1

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

8

5

4

3

MV11

Accounting

Ich. I Le 111. th Off, Elec- Food Carp- Sa es Clean Out-

Src Iron. Serr. Off. Hands doors

278

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

ACCOUNTING

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

2221

20 90 97 2019 09 09 89 1918 99 99 77 99 1817 99 99 03 99 1716 99 99 51 99 98 1615 98 99 42 99 97 99 1514 97 98 34 99 96 99 1413 96 08 27 98 94 99 90 1312 93 97 20 97 91 97 90 09 99 1211 91 05 14 96 87 95 99 99 99 11

10 89 93 10 95 81 91 96 95 08 109 87 00 7 93 72 85 92 87 95 98 83 86 6 91 65 77 84 74 89 87 80 82 5 89 59 64 75 56 80 76 76 78 4 85 51 49 65 39 70 65 71 70 3 75 43 35 53 25 59 54 64 50 2 63 37 20 39 12 41 43 56 47 2 49 28 10 24 5 28 32 46 35 2 31 18 4 12 2 13 21 33 21 1 13 8 1 5 1 5 1

0 13 7 1 3 2 2 1 0

N=398 N=398 N=398 N=308 N=398 N=398 N =398 N=398 N=398M=3.82 M =3.00 M=14.96 M=3.72 M=6.25 M=6.24 M=5.05 M =6,55 M =4.70

8D=4.22 SD --=3.55 SD=3.93 SD=2,92 8D=4.12 SD=2.61 SD=2.63 80=2 16 SD=2,43

279:

2:3

21

19

Is

17

II 16

A 15

11

S

011 1(1

9

(3

5

1

:3

2

1

MVII

Clerical Training

Mech, Ile 04 () I, Klee 1 ttl Carp. Saks Ch an ()W-SW. Wk. (ran, Sen.. entry 09. Ila nls door,

280

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

CLERICAL TRAINING

Raw Health Off Elec. Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron, Sery entry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

2221

20 97 2019 99 91 99 19

18 99 S5 99 18

17 99 99 71 99 1716 99 97 61 99 99 16

15 99 96 51 99 117 1111 15

14 99 9.1 .12 99 95 99 99 I113 99 91 34 99 111 99 99 13

12 99 89 27 99 86 99 !IS 99 99 12

II 99 86 20 99 79 !IS 97 99 99 I I

10 4.19 S2 15 119 70 96 9-1 95 99 10

9 99 71; 11 99 59 93 110 88 99 98 98 69 9 9S 5 87 81 77 98 87 !IS 61 6 97 33 76 71) 59 96 7

6 97 53 94 23 63 56 1 91 65 95 14 3 88 15 6 39 21 80 5

1 92 35 2 76 9 28 21 12 62 4

3 87 25 I 58 6 13 13 5 41 3

2 78 17 I 36 2 6 2 24 2

1 58 8 1 15 1 1 2 1 9 1

1) 23 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 0

N=551 N=55I N =551 N=55I N=55I N=5.5I N =551 N=551 N=55151 =1.30 M=0.27 M=14.16 M=2.87 M=8.41 M=5.45 M=5.S2 M=0.48 M =3.46

SD=2.09 SD= 4.23 SD= 3.95 SD= 1.89 0=3.24 SD=2.21 SD=2.51 SD=2.03 SD =1.93

281

It

(

It

21

IS

17

11

12

11

10

(I

MVII

Sales

_

I

_

___ _

- -1_----

I_ .

1

I

___

--, -

,

1

1

1

1

MI

i

El_

_

11....1111

Nov. IUtI

282

St.1

Sale. (J,, lut

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

SALES

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

222120 99 2019 :19 9:1 1918 98 97 91) 1817 96 94 09 99 1716 94 91 IN 9915 03 85 00 08 1514 93 99 79 98 96 14

13 91 07 73 97 94 91) 99 1312 88 95 65 97 92 98 96 12

I I 87 94 56 06 88 00 93 98 I 1

IO 85 93 50 94 83 90 86 98 94 109 81 92 46 91 79 82 78 93 87 08 75 88 39 85 75 72 69 84 77 87 71 80 33 76 68 59 58 71 08 76 66 71 28 68 58 48 46 ;.6 58 65 59 63 22 59 48 35 34 42 44 5

4 5(1 53 17 48 36 19 22 27 3(1 4

3 42 38 10 36 22 111 12 10 19 32 32 25 4 22 10 5 7 1 12 2

1 18 12 2 10 4 1 4 4 1

0 5 3 1 3 1 1 1 0

N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N =108 N=108M=5.22 M =4.47 M=0.50 M=4.72 51=6.00 11 =6.36 M =3.45 51 =5.68 M =5.58

SD=4.86 SD=3.25 SD= 4.81 SD=3.30 SD=3.62 SD =2.04 SD= 3.01 SD=2.07 SD=2.74

283

S

MVII

Agri-Technology

_1----

NIttli. II. . glib OIL Eh., oggl C. rp- S.i ggs (:1g..m (bit-Set v. Wk. Iron. 'land, glom.;

284

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

AGRI- TECHNOLOGY

RawScore

HealthMech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2'22221 99 21

21) 291!I 95 119 99 19

IS 90 99 98 99 IS17 S6 99 96 99 17

Ili 50 99 91 99 16

15 72 99 .13 117 15I 1 66 98 92 97 97 99 .99 I I

1:1 57 94 91) 91 1)5 97 93 13

12 50 95 56 SS 92 112 94 12

1 1 -11 117 52 83 s9 S7 87 I 1

10 35 94 79 77 57 SO 99 99 73 II)9 :13 90 77 (9) S3 (7 911 97 58 9

8 27 56 74 19) 77 56 95 93 137 21 81 70 52 (9) 45 92 5)1 296 17 74 63 41 60 31 85 74 IS5 11 1I6 55 :91 53 19 7S 62 9 54 1 I 62 -18 21 1 13 6-1 45 11 .1

9 50 :19 13 33 S 43 29 22 6 33 27 7 21 1 27 I 6 2 2

2 20 16 2 11 I 15

7 ti 1 4 5 I)

N=115 5=115 N=115 5=115 \ =11:i 5=115 5 =115 N=115 N=115M=11:37 11=4.01 M=5.65 M=7.19 1E =5,41 NI =7,5! M=3.50 11=4.44 11 =8.34

89=3.51 89=4.9.5 89=3.58 81)=3.00 $1) =2,95 89=2.34 89=2.18 80=2.45

285

22

20

11/

IS

17

15

It13

12

11

9

8

5

.1

3

2

1

0

MVII

Power and Home Electricity

Mech. 1 (=mli Off. Eke. Food Carp. Sales CI an Out-Sm. tron. Sm.. entry CA /lands (It lrs

286

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

POWER AND HOME ELECTRICITY

Raw Health OffScore M ech Sery Wk

Elec-trop.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221201018

9991780757

2221

201918

17 45 90 90 1716 36 85 99 1)1) 1015 311 99 72 99II 23 99 60 98 99 99 14

13 18 99 99 47 98 90 00 1312 14 OS 99 33 97 OS 88 1211 III 97 99 22 90 97 76 11

10 7 90 99 14 95 96 59 10

9 5 95 08 9 93 93 99 91) 13 08 4 93 97 6 90 87 99 98 29 s7 3 91 95 1 80 79 97 95 10 76 2 80 03 3 78 66 95 90 9 65 1 79 89 2 61) 51 89 83 5 54 1 70 81 1 58 34 80 70 2 4

3 1 60 69 1 42 19 68 51 1 32 1 46 53 1 23 10 49 30 1 21 1 25 31 8 4 26 130 1 0 9 1 1 8 3 0

N =207 N =207 N =207 N =207 N=207 N =207 N=207 N =207 N=201M =16.57 M =3.12 M =2.38 M =12.94 M =4.18 1,5 =5.10 M=2.40 M=3.18 N1=9.2881)=4.01 SD =2.92 14D SD=2.93 =2.96 SD =2.58 SD =1.91 SD = 1.91 81)=-2.30

287

S

1(

21

21

20

10

IS

17

lk

15

13

1

:3

(I

MVII

Aircraft Mechanics

1--

Sc v.Off. 1.*,,a1 C. Saks (..k.aa t-'k. trou. Scrv. entry 01E. 'buds doors

288

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINISCORE TRAINING NORMS

AIRCRAFT MECHANICS

Ra Health Off Elec- Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Sery entry Off, Hands doors Score

2221

20111

IS

95S3675037

2221

2(1

19

IS17 26 99 1716 19 98 16I5 17 93 1514 13 88 99 119 1.1

13 S 80 98 95 1312 5 911 67 99 96 83 12II 3 119 55 99 91 71 11

10 2 99 12 US 85 99 52 109 I 97 28 97 78 99 31 98 95 99 17 93 70 97 99 16 87 92 95 1 I 89 63 96 91) 7 76 85 1)5 7 78 56 93 97 4 65 80 97 3 65 44 S9 92 2 54 74 9.1 2 53 25 79 S5 1 4

3 57 87 I 39 17 66 71 3

2 36 73 21 S 50 16 21 18 48 7 3 27 22 1

(1 5 16 2 1 8 0 0

5 =103 N= 103 5 =103 5 =103 N =103 5 =10:1 5 =101 5 =103 N=103M =18.24 M =3.13 M =1,41 M =10.58 M =4.09 M =5.14 M =2.49 M =2.33 11=11.8961)=3.05 Sll =2.42 81.)= 1.55 SI)=2.89 0=2.41 8=3.19 S0 =2.11 S p= 1.9.5 SD= 1.95

289

5

.3

MVII

Data Processing

.

. _.. _

(

. .

. -_

t -1-1

-

...-.----_

--- _----

._--,

T

Nlutli. 11.1tIt lave.trim.

290

Fondentry

SAles 1 loan ( )11t-()II. I idinis dolls

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

DATA PROCESSING

Raw HealthScore Mech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Salesentry Off.

Clean Out-Hands doors

RawScore

'22

21

2221

20 98 20

19 94 19

18 99 88 IS17 99 80 17

16 98 !)9 71 99 16

15 97 98 62 99 99 15

14 95 96 53 98 !IS 99 11

13 92 95 1 97 97 99 99 13

12 89 91 39 95 95 9S 9:1 12

11 S5 92 33 92 90 96 ,S 97 99 II10 82 88 26 S9 85 91 96 91 98 10

9 79 83 20 86 80 811 93 gli 93 9

8 75 78 18 S1 73 77 S i 77 S7 S 'N,

7 73 71 17 75 l;3 65 71 (Ni 79 7 "I6 (18 61 13 69 52 50 61 50 69 6

5 62 51 S 61 3 35 6 32 56 5

4 56 40 5 53 35 25 30 18 0 1

3 19 30 3 37 21 16 17 9 26 3

2 41 22 1 22 11 7 9 4 11 2

1 31 13 1 8 (; 1 4 1 5 I

0 12 4 1 1 1 1 1 0

N=157 N=157 N=157 \ =157 N-157 N=157 \ =157 N=157 N-15751 = 4.55 51 = 5.31 M =12.77 51 =4.84 =5.92 7=6.05 51 =5.39 51 -= 5.1S 51 4.S3

SD= 1.70 SD = 3.79 So 1.63 S1)=3.50 S1)=3.48 S1)=2.71 141)=2.43 S D=2.12 SD =2.4S

291

MV11

Medical Laboratory Assistant

tli. ii t .til. (mt. Clr 1.,,KIS. %. \\ k. ti,ok

292

Carl,ittry

Sir, 111,n011 Hand,

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT

Raw HealthScore Med.' Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

2221

Y.!

2120 99 20II) 318 93 1918 98 7)) Is17 98 -15 l16 98 28 1)6 1615 98 to 90 15I4 97 16 84 I-1

13 96 13 99 76 99 1312 06 10 06 66 97. 1211 95 7 04 58 95 11

10 1)3 6 02 91) 50 98 91 99 111

9 91 5 85 97 :39 93 82 97 98 89 4 77 94 27 87 66 93 87 SO 1 68 911 18 78 47 97 86 76 84 6)) 88. 14 65 34 87 82 Ii

5 82 53 87 11 54 28 73 71 54 i 9 -1 43 84 8 41 17 56 58 43 77 4 29 72 5 23 8 :34 40 32 06 4 18 53 :3 II 5 17 20 2I 4 4 12 29 I 5 3 7 7 I

0 15 2 4 7 I I 1 2 0

N=49 N=40 N-=49 N=49 N=49 N=49 S=49 N=49 S=49M =2.73 M =16.02 M =5.20 M =2.51 M = 10.04 M =4.94 M=6.70 M =3.70 M =3.02

SD= 4.08 81)=3.96 SD = 3.38 S1)=2.43 81)=3.75 SD= 2.47 SD= 2.69 SD= 1.75 SI)=. 2.30

293

A'V

21

20

19

IS

rr1(i

17)

I I

I:3

12

11

Ill¶1

S

5

3

MVII

Interior Design and Sales Assistant

NI,. 11. I le iltli Off.!les. Wk.

El v.tron.

294

FoodSirs.

Carp..1,1 try

Soles Cl .alt Out.Off. I funds tlimrs

MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS

INTERIOR DESIGN AND SALES ASSISTANT

RawScor

HealthMech Sery

OffWk

Elec-tron.

FoodSery

Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score

222120

222120

19 99 99 1918 98 97 1817 98 05 99 1716 97 99 94 09 98 1615 94 97 91 98 98 09 15

14 02 94 89 97 96 9813 90 02 80 90 94 98 OS 1312 88 111 88 96 90 94 06 1211 87 87 84 96 82 87 92 11

10 86 82 80 95 76 76 80 10

S I 77 72 94 71 63 64 98 76 69 64 03 63 53 52 97 99 87 74 01 57 87 41 41 90 94 7

71 57 51 81 25 31 70 87 65 63 54 43 73 10 24 64 71 54 56 44 34 59 11 15 43. 42 43 49 34 30 43 8 (1 7 22 15 32 38 23 25 28 5 3 3 9 4 2

1 21 10 17 18 2 2 3 2 1

0 6 2 (3 1 1 0

N=54 N=54 N=54 X=54 N=54 N=54 N=54 N=54 N=54M=4.85 M=5.76 M=6.-16 51=3.89 M=7.4:1 M=7.74 7.50 M=4.43 M=4.35

SD=4.77 SD=4.23 SD=5.00 SD=3.20 SD=3.42 SD=2.84 SD=2.90 SD= 1.51 SD= 1.42

295