united states armed institute tests educational developmen'l
TRANSCRIPT
MESSMER HIGH SCHOOL NORMS
FOR THE
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE TESTS
OF GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMEN'l'
REVEREND VERNON J . KUEHN, B. A.
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts.
IIIL¥fAUKEE, WISCONSI N
April .. 1948
This sut"Vay 'WOuld not have been possible 1d.thout the co
operat1onof numerous people at Marquette tJniverslty and ttessmer
High School . The writer is especially indebted to Dr . George W.
illett for his a ssistance, encou..ragement , and guidance and to
the Reverend Charles M. O' Hara, S. J ., and Dr. U. Arline Al bright
for t.eir valuable suggestions.
An expression of appreeiation is due to the Reverend Jon."l ' .
Voelker,. principnl of !.\tessmer High School, for making available tho
s tudents who were the subjects 0 f tt.:is study, and for his encourage
ment and suggestions, as also to the t-eachers who so graciousl y
cooperated in the sup",rn.sion of tbe tests.
The writer is gr atef'ul to !fi ss Lily, Detehen, Director of the
~~meric:m Council on Education Veterans ' Testing Service, Chicago ,
Illinois, for bel' courtesy in furnishing information about the
original study which ,ms not available in pr~nted form.
The writer appreeiates the generosity of Mr . J . &. Worthington,
principal of ~a.ukesr;aI:Iigh SGhool, and the Veterans ' Administratio.n
Offiee for the use of their test booklets.
CONTENTS
Chapter I
The Problem
.• . • •.. ... . . .............. . ... . ... ..... .... ... ..... . ........••..•• 1
Chapter II
Material and Subjects
Material ... 0 ' ........... ... .. ... ....... . ...... .. ~ ••••••••••••• ••••••• 8 Subjects . ...... . .................... ... ... 0 ... ....................... .. 8
Chapter III
Method of Procedure
Administration of Tests •.• . .•.• ' ••...•••...•••...•••••...•.... ' ....• 9
Chapter IV
Findings and CompariSons
Test One, Correctness and Effectiveness of Expression •••••••••••• 14 Test Two, Interpretation of Reading Materials in the Social
Studies . ..• •.••••.•••.. . ..•....• • ..••.••..•••....•.•...••••• 16 Test Three, Interpretation of Reading Materials in the
Natural 5ciences ••••••••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••• lB Test Four, Interpretation of Literary Materials ••••••••• •••• ••••• 20 Test Five, General Mathematical Ability •••• • •••••••••• ••• • •• ••••• 22 Average Standard Scores of Messmer Students ••••••• • •••••••••••••• 24 Percentile Ranks for Complete Battery of Tests ••• ••• ••••••• ••• ••• 26
Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations
General Interpretations ••••••.••••.• • • •• • .•• • . .• ••. • • •••• •.• ••••• 28 Messmer High School Norms ••• , ..... ................... . .. ... . ... ..... 30 s'l.1IIlrtl8.xy ••••••• •• •• •••••• •• e, .. • • • • • • • •• ' ..... 0 - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ......... 3.3 Conclusions ... . ' ......... .... . . .. .............. . ....... e . ... ........... ... .33 Reconunendations • •... .•••.• ' . .. . ' ..... .. .. ....... ....... . .... .. . .. .. .. ... ••••• 33
Bibliography
. .... .... ......... . ........................ ... . .......... . .... ..... . . ............. .. .. .• 35
Appendices
Directions for Supervising Teachers ••••••••••••• • •••••••••••••••• 39 Directions for Students ... ... .... ..... ' .. ... .............. ... ...... ..... ...... ...... 40
LIST OF TABLFS
Table It Percentile Norms for Test of Correctness and Effective-ness of Expression •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14
Table II: Percentile Norms for Test of Interpretation of Reading Materials in the Social Studies ••••••••••••••••••• ••• ••••••• 16
Table III: Percentile Norms for Test of Interpretation of Reading Materials in the Natural Sciences ••••••••••• • ••••••• l8
Table IV: Percentile Norms for Test of Interpretation of Liter~ Materials •••••••••••••• • ••••• ••. ••• ••••••••••• ••••• 20
Table V: Percentile Norms for Test of General Mathematical Ability •• o •• ..... ' ••••••• ' •••••••••••••• ' ........................ ...... 22
Table VI : Percentile Norms for Average Standard Scores on Five United s tates Armed Forces Institute Tests of General Educational Development •••••.• •• ••••••• •••• ••• •• ••• •••• ••••• 24
Table VII: Percentile Norms for Five Tests of General Educational Development ••••••••••••••••••••.•••..••• •. •••••• 26
1.
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM
Var disrupts normal life . Its impact is felt , not only in gov-
ernment and politics, but in all phases of htnnan living, in t he home ,
in the factory,. in t he profess ions . During World War II its impact
"TaS strongly felt in the field of education .
One educational problem growing out of World '/,'ar II revolved
about the question of granting high school diplomas on the basis of
educational experiences in the armed forces . The demand f or such
educational credit grew partially out of the enthusiasm of youth for
battle , their loyalty to their country, and t he U. S. Government
system of accepting enlistments at the a ge of 16 prior to high
school graduation, and partially out of t he generosity of the
American G. I . Bill of Rights which offered edueational benefits to
these who were active i n t he armed for ces of our country.
As the war progressed veterans were discharged from t he armed
services. Many of those who had enlisted prior to gr aduation sought
high s chool diplomas . With them carne older men who had l eft high
school without graduation before the lmr, had been drafted into or
enlisted in t he Armed Forces, and now, considerably beyond high J
school age, desired to t ake advanta e of the government t s offer of
ass istance in attending college.
These cases posed. tremendous and innumerable problems for educa-
t ional administrators . In most cases , after severa l years in service,
t hese veterans were too old to r e turn to regular high school classes,
and in many cases they prBferred not to do so . At the same time,
facilities were lacking to handle them in other schools to allow
comple tion of their credits . Furthermore, there was a general belief
that their experiences in the armed forces had some educational value ·
which might be measured ~~d accredited to~~rd graduation.
This was not a completely neti problem. After World War I a
S,1stem of Ublar~et credit" had been tried and found unsatisfactory.
An attempt liaS therefore made to organize a more systematic method
of' readjusting veterans to high sch'lols and colleges. The American
Council on Education instituted a series of studies and activities
to determine wlmt credit might be safely grant ed for educational
experiences in the Armed Forces. These studies and activities
culminated in the publication of A Guide to the Evaluation of
Educational Experiences in the Armed Services , published in 19J~4-
1945.
The experimental VJork of the American Council r:n Education
left no doubt that experiences in t he armed for ces had definite
educational value. For formal in- service educational experiences,
such as service training prograw.s , correspondence and self- t eaching
courses and group instruction, and class instruction in college,
junior college, and secondary school subjects , the committee set up
recommendations fo r credit on the basis of "content, extent , educa-
tional level, aud purpose of training, " warning, however , that
"the general educational value~ derived from the same formal experiences will vary for individuals, due to differ ences in general intelligence, pr evious educational status, interest, i ncentive, and educational objectives ll • (1)
2.
(1) A Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences i n the Armed Forces, Introduction~ 1 and 2 .
The committ ee supplemented its recommendations with t he construction
of educational achievement exami nations ( "end-of -course" and Ufiel d"
or "subjectll exalninati ons) to aid each educational institution i n
establishing the amount of credit attained in the light of its Olm
requirements .
The problem of evalusting infor mal learning eA~eriences , such
as dir ect observation and fir st- hand experience in countries or pl aces
visited, e)rperiences inci dent al to Inilitary service, that i s gained
lion the job" after completion of for:rJal training, or self-directed
study, readi.."1g, educati onal movies and lectures , &nd so forth, was
more di f ficult. Her e content , extent, and purpose could not be
indicated or measured.
To measure this continued educational growth tv:o batteries of
"Tests of General Educational evelopment" were desi gned, one for use
a t t he high school and t he ot her at the college l evel . Dr . L:i.nquist,
:i.n an article 1'Il'itten for tf The Educational Rccord" said of the hi gh
school tests:
"The purpose of the high school l evel tests is to pr ovide a measure of the e:xtent to which the student has secured the equivalent of a general (non- technical) high school education. " (2}
(2) E. F. Linquist, liThe Use of Tests in the Accreditation of Military Experience and in tIe Educational Placement of War Veterans, 1t The Educational Record, 357- 76, October 1944, 364.
3.
Norms for the high school tests were established for a sample
of 35, 432 public high school seniors ,. chosen from school s throughout
t he country and tested in April-June, 1943, just before graduation
from a general (non-technical or non- trade) high school curriculum.
On the basis of t his standardization t he commit tee r ecommended, with
reservations, that a returning veteran be given a secondary school
diplmr.a if he made a standard score of 35 or above on each of the
five tests ~ or an average standard score of 45 or 8.bove on the five
tests in t he batt ery. The suggestion i s made in the !!!xaminer t s
M~'1ual t hat each school or group of schools should set up its own
st8.ndards ..
UTo use the s cores on these t ests • • • , individual schools (or groups of schools) must determine for themselves what critical scores on the individual tests , or what average s cor e on the f ive tests, or both, the veteran must exceed to qualify for a high school diploma .. " (3)
(3) Examiner's Manual, 7
It was this recommendation together with developments which followed
t he application of the results of these tests to retarning veterans
that suggested a need fo r the present survey.
As test findings aecumulated some administrators began t o
question t he validity of the UTests of General Educational Development" .
The findings revealed that !'lome students who had made very poor r ecords
in s chool, scored relatively high in the G. E. D. t ests . Other
instances S.taW students with only ta semester or a year of formal high
school demanding a diploma on t he basis of the s cores on these tests .
Individual school s , which at first had accepted the recommendations
of the Manual. a..."'<i State Departmel'lts of Education in many states
made definite restrictions on the use of G. &. D. te'sts in granting
diplomas or certificates of equivalency. (h)
(4) See Ac.creciltation Policies of State De · tments of Education for t'ie l.'valuation of Service Experiences Ck'ld U. S. A. I" . 1 . E1WdUina tioni3.
Some states refused to gi va any diplomas or certifi cates. The
Hew York Division of . oondar;r Education through its director,
'''arran W. Knox, specified t v..at the tests might be used only or
~uidance or placement purposes:
tiThe G. E. D. test may be used by school autoori ties fo·r general guid.."Ulce and placement purposes. For example , a veteran lacking credit for high school English, may demonstrate by a score in this test that he should be given an opportunity to take advanced wglish riork, and be gra'llted run credit for four years of higb school English when he suocessfUlly completes the last yeart S l'JQrk. u (~J
(5) Ibid. , 41 -Jaineand New Jersey adopted a similar policy. (6) One state,
(6) ~ •• 25 and 38.
Maryland, (7) demanded a score of 50 on each test" while Arizona,
Californi a and Nevada. (8) deeided to accept a minimum ot 35 on each
(7) Ibid., 26 (8) Ibid., 5, 7, and )6
5.
test and a 45 average on the battery_ }lany s tate Departments of - - -
Education listed certain required credits , mostly irt U. S. History
and Civics , without which the G. E. D. results would not be accepted.
In the Milwaukee area a committee headed by Mr . Paul B. Cl emens,
Assi stant Superintendent of Milwaukee School s , studied the question
of credits fo r retl~ning servicemen. This Committee on High School
Accreditation f or Veterans and Service Per sonnel designed t he ilwaukee
Adult High School a s the r ecognized agency for M.ilwaukee city high
schools, public, parochial , and pr i vate,. for t he purpose of ad-
ministering and evaluat ing G. E. D. tests for veterans and for de-
t ermini ng t.he proper high school accreditation for trai ning and
experience of these veterans wrJ.le it'! service. The committee
accepted the r ecommended standar ds set by the orie-inal standardiza-
tion committee . ( 9)
( 9) Policy ami Pr ocedure for Evaluatin , eredi ts for Hi gh School Graduation of Veterans . May 1, 19 ·7
At Messmer High School an examination of G. E. D. test results
on fonner Messmer students indicated that t he suggested norms for
grant:i.ng a diploma were t oo low for the calibre o f Messmer graduates.
It was felt t hat the a.verage Messmer student would rate higher than
the students on v,cllOm t he t ests were sta.'ldardized, and that,
consequently, higher norms sr,ould be required. Several limited
studies, made with a few graduates of the June, 19h5 class and the
February, 1946 cl ass who volth'ltarily ehose to take the B-form of the
G. E. D. tests , seemen to substantiate this opinion.
6.
In ~lew of the fact that the standardization committee had
recomraended that the schools set up their ovm norms , it was decided
to make a test survey of all the graduates of June, 1947, to compare
the results ' ,ith the standard norms for the North Central Region
and for t he United States , and to establish criteria for use at
es mer High School in granting diplomas to returning veterans .
Chapter II
r TEP.T L .ND SUBJECTS
Material
In order t o conduct this survey i t was necessary t o obtain
booklets for t he entire battery of five United States Armed Forces
Institute Tests of General Educational Development, High ':: chool
Level-Form B, together with t he answer sheet s designed for machine
scoring. Suffici~nt bookl et s were made available so t hat half of
the students in each room could be occupied with one test '!',hile t.he
other half were occupi ed with another test .
The ~x&ninerls Manual was used for directions for administering
and scoring the t ests .
A. Guide t o the FWaluation of Educat ional Experiences in the
Armed Forces \7aS found valuable in the question of the recommended
minimum 8core('; .
Suhjects
The subject s of the study const ituted the entire graduating
class of June 1947 of Me ssmer High School, consisting of 317 pupils.
Since several of t he class left school early, and sickness and other
emer~encies prevented the attendance of some other s on one of the
three t esting days , the number who took the individual tests ranged
from 288 to 306, with 282 takinG the entire battery.
8
Chapter III
METE... OF 1 _CEDURE
A~~ni5tration of Tests
I nability t , arr ange a suitable t ime and place for the testing
program during the r egular sessi ons forced t he decision t o conduct
the admini s t ration of the t ests on Monday, 'I'ue day, and Wednesday,
,June 2-3-4, following t he reGular senior exami nati ons , and pr ior t o
t he act ual day of graduati on .
Several weeks prior t o the test dat es, the principal , a t al
assembly of the .senior class , outlined the purposes of the Tests of
General Educati onal Devel opment and explained the purpose of the
i ltended study . On the day f the first test the writer personally
vi sited each r80m in .'hi lli tests were being administered t o r epea.t
the short explanation of t he purpose of the study, namely, tt>..e
establishllcnt of General Educationa l Devel opment norms for Mes mer
Hi gb School. It vm s pointed out at this time that the resul ts
would have no beari ng upon the graduation of t he students involved~
and <L"l appeal wa s made f or sincere effort a nd co-operati on on t he
basi s of school spirit. The s tudents wer e reminded that colla boration
''IOuld not help them and would lnvalidate the r esults .
The bat tery of tests wa admi nistered under t he compet ent s'per
vision of high- school t eacher s , in most cases , the homeroom t eachers
of the s t udents taking the test.s . The r ooms used, homerooms,
l i brary, and gymnasium, were well- lighted, a:;.d proYisions made f or a
minimum opportunlty of collab ration .
The means used to avoid any collaboration are worthy of special
note . They were threefold . First, as indicated previously, each
room was under strict supervision and received instructions that
talking was not permitted. Secondly, whenever possi ble, and this
laS readil y done on the first two days , students sitting next to
each other were given different examinations to write . Thirdly,
students were not allowed to leave the testing room, except in
serious emergen~, prior to the time that they had finished the
day' s tests . The result of these precautions, according to the
observations of the supervisors, was an absolute minimum of
conversation during the test periods, and no possible outside
contacts between students who had t.'lken a specific test and those
who had not yet taken it . .
The battery was administered over a three d~ per iod between
8 :30 and 12:00 o'clock each morning. The tests were given in the
order of their design, two tests on each of the first two mornings ,
and one test on the third UlOrning.. With this arrangement, Test
One: Correctness and Effectiveness of Expression, and Test T?m :
Interpretation of Reading Materials in the Social Studies , were
administered on onday; Test Three: Interpretation of Reading
Materials in the Natural Sciences, and Test Four: Interpretation
of Literary Materials, on Tuesday; and Test Five: General
athematical Ability, on iednesday.
Since the writer could not personally supervise each testing
room, a sheet of directions 'was designed for the supervising
teachers , outlining their duties during the examinations . A further
sheet of directions designed for the st,udents was put into the
10.
hands of the supervising teachers to be r ead to the examinees . A
copy of each ~~ll be foun - in the Appendix.
At the conclusion of three days of testj~g the answer sheet s
were turne over to t.he J~ilwaukee School Boar d Office where they
wer e machine s col"'ed. Upon t heir r eturn a check v. s made on the
accuracy of t he scor e s by t.he hand- scoring pro cess . Since the
r esults were f ound to be in occasional error due to improper
mar Kings and a ssible machi ne defe.ct , each te s t was rechecked
by lUlnd t o insure absolute accur a c,y.
The answe r she-ets v[er e sorted to bring to _at ar all ide tical
scores , a..,d t he nurllber of cases at each standard SCOr e was recorded
for each test . From t1 ese fi !7ures t he percentile ranking for each
standard s core Viera derived (See Chapter IV, 'fables I - V) . The
answer sheets ';vere "hen rearranged acco ding to nnmes t o br ing
together each s tudent ' s standard scores on each of the f ive test s .
An index ct::rd a s used. to record each ex:ar"i nee I S TIrur.e and .,is
standard sco ... e s on each of the tests . Averages were t hen computed,
the cards ar ranged i n rank s , the number at each average score
counted and recorded, a.d. percentile r anks establi shed for the
aV61uges of the standard s cores ( See Chapter I V, Table VI) .
In each of t he fir s t f ive t ables the percenti l e ranks
corresponding to the various standard score s for this study, for
the Nor th Central Regi on, and for the United St ates were arranged
in parallel col umns for t he purpose of comparison. It was not
pOGsi ble in Table VI to collate percentiles for the average of the
standar d scores since in the original standardization of the tests
11.
"each of the five tests was administered to a strictly random fifth of t he seniors tested in each of the schools participating in the standardization program. Thus no pupil took more than one t est but t he samples for all tests vrere strictl y comparable . " (1)
(1) From a l etter from Julia J. Peterson, Ass i stant to Dr . E. F. Linquist of Iowa State University, dated March 26, 1947, in answer to a request for information on the standardization program used in establishing t he original norms .
Since the
"standard scores have the same meaning for and are t herefore comparable for all five t ests of the batterylt , (2)
(2) Examiner t s Manual, 8.
a summary of t he percentile norms for each of the tests and for the
averages of all the tests was compiled in parallel columns in a final
table (See Chapter 4, Table VII) .
12.
Chapter IV
S~~Y OF DATA AND CO PARISON ITE STMI""DARD SCORES AND PERCE!'lTILE NORMS
The data resulting from the administration of this battery is
summarized in the f ollowing tables I to VII , which include the
findings of this study and the findings of the original s t andardiza-
tion. Each table i s followed by a short discussion pointing out
significant facts presented in the table , which, in Tables I-V,
includes apparent di f ferences bet',,"'edn percentile ranks of this
study and t hose of the North Central Region and the United Stat.es. (1)
(1) Percentile ral".ks for the North Central Region and the United States are taken from 'fhe Examiner ' s Manual .
That comparison is possible is evident from the bases of
comparibility. Both groups tested are graduates from a general
(non-trade) high school curriculum and both groups consist of boys
and girls. As detailed data on t he original standardization program
is not available, it is i mpossible to state whether there was a
difference in t he attitude of the examinees .
To make the percentile ranks comparable the same method was
used for the Mes smer High School compilations as i s found in the
reported norms in the Examiner ' s Manual. (2) In the tables presented
( 2) Examiner ' s annal , 8
a standard score f alling a t the 82nd percentile means that 82 percent
of the hi gh school seniors tested scored below that standard s core .
3
IU. Tabl e I: Percentile Norms for Test of Correctness and Effective-
ness of Expression (High School Level- Form B)
Percentile Ranks Corresponding to Various Standard Scores for Messmer High School Seniors (June, '1947)
and Pub~c High School Seniors Tested at Time o~ Graduation from a General (non-
trade) algh School Curriculum ;; \: i ~
r ••• • •• Percentile Ranks • • • • •• •• • • I. I ' Region • No. of Cases I , Messmer IV
standard Messmer ! High (North Total
Scores High School . School Central) U. S. , \
75+ 1 99 75 2 \. 99 .. 74 1 \ 99 72 1 98 99 99 71 2 98 98 98 68 4 96 97 96 67 5 95 96 96 66 2 94 95 95 65 4 93 94 93 64 4 91 93 92 63 5 90 91 90 62 3 89 90 88 61 13 85 88 86 (fJ 3 84 86 84 59 4 82 84 82 58 9 79 81 79 57 13 75 78 76 56 9 72 75 73 55 10 69 72 69 54 7 66 68 66 53 6 65 65 62 52 17 59 62 58 51 23 52 58 54 50 16 46 55 50 49 21 40 50 46 48 18 33 46 42 47 18 28 42 38 46 21 21 38 34 45 8 18 35 31 44 14 14 31 27 43 5 12 27 24 42 5 10 24 21 41 4 $ 20 18 40 6 7 17 16 39 5 6 15 14 38 4 4 13 12 37 6 2 11 10 35 2 2 7 7 34 2 1 6 5 32 1 1 4 4 31 1 30 1
306
In Table I ~ starting at st&,dard score 52 there is a ~adual
divergence of percentil e ra~~s from 2 to 17 percentiles from the
North Central ranks, with a peak at standard s~ore 46 and 44; and
a divergence of from 2 to 13 percentiles from the U. S. total, with
a peak of 13 percentiles at standard score 46-44. The middle half
for Messmer Hi gh School falls between st,andard scores 46-56, for
North Central between 42-56, and for the U. S. between 43-56. The
7th percentile for Messmer High School falls at 40 , theoretically
39. 68 , whereas the D. s. 7th percentile fall s at 35 ..
15.
Table II: Percentile Norms for Test of Interpretation of Reading (ateria.ls in the cial Studies (Hi gh School Level orm B)
Standard Scores
75+ 75 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 63 62 61 tIJ 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 £,4. 43 42 hI 10 30 37 36 35 32
Percentile Ranks Corresponding to Various ~·tandard Scores for Ue ssmer Higb School Seniors (June, 1941)
and Public Higb School Seniors Tested a t Time of Graduation from a Gener al (non
trade) High Scbool Curriculum
•••••• ~ •• Percentile Ranks •••••••••• • Region , .
No. of Gases Mes smer IV • esSttler Hi gh (North Total
Higb School School Cent r al) u. s.
1 99 1 99 2 99 99 3 98 99 98 .3 97 98 98 3 96 98 7 2 95 97 96 .3 94 96 96 .3 93 95 95 4 92 94 93 6 90 92 . 90 2 89 90 88 4 88 88 86 6 86 86 84 5 84 84 82
24 76 81 79 15 13 78 16 7 69 75 73
23 62 11 69 31 51 66 66 19 45 62 62 22 38 59 58 20 31 55 54 16 26 52 50 9 23 41 46 8 20 42 h2
18 14 39 38 4 13 34 34 7 11 31 31 2 10 28 21 7 8 24 24 5 6 21 21 .3 5 19 18 1 5 16 16 .3 4 12 14 4 3 10 12 2 2 8 10 3 1 7 7 3 3 4
304
In Tabl e II from standard score 58 t here i s a rapid divergence
of percentiles r anging f r om 3 t o 26 percentiles in t he comparison
with the Nor th Centr al Region, and from 3 to 24 percentiles in
comparison with the total U. S. Only 26 per cent of the Messmer
graduates fall below standar d score 50, whereas 52 per cent of the
North Central graduates and 50 per cent of the U. S. graduates fall
bel ow that. score. The middle hal f f or Messmer High School falls
between standar d score 49 and 57; for t he North Central Region and
t,he U. S. between 43 and 56. The 7th percentile , which falls at
standard s core 35 for both the North Central Region and t he United
States , falls at 42 .76 for Messmer Hi gh School .
17.
.18.
Tabl e III: Percentile Norms for Test of Interpretation of Reading Materials in the Natural Sci ences (Hi gh School Level -Form B)
Standard Scores
75 74 73 72 70 68 67 66 64 63 61 f:fJ 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 44 43 42 hI 40 39 38 37 33 32 28 28-
Percentile Ranks Corresponding to Various s tandard Scores for Messmer High School Seniors (June, 19h7)
and Public High School Seniors Tested at Time of Graduation from General (non
trade) High School Curriculum
••••• ••• Percentile Ranks • • •• • ••• Region
No. of Cases Messmer IV • ?!essmer F.igh (North Total
High School School Central) U. s.
1 99 98 98 6 98 97 96 5 96 96 96 3 95 95 95 2 94 92 92 6 92 91 90 4 91 87 86 9 88 84 84
11 84 82 82 22 77 80 79 12 73 77 76 14 68 73 73 10 65 70 69 10 61 66 66 15 57 63 62
8 54 59 58 19 48 55 54 8 45 50 50 8 42 46 46
10 39 42 42 16 34 38 38 11 30 33 34 11 26 27 27 12 22 24 24 12 113 21 21 8 16 18 18 5 14 15 16 7 12 12 14
12 8 11 12 10 4 9 10
6 2 3 4 4 1 2 4 1 1 2
300
The test presented in Table III shows the least differences of
percentile r anks . The percentiles are almo st parallel throughout
vdth a 5 and 6 percentile divergence for t he orth Central Region
and the U. S. respectively at standard score 37. The middle half is
almost parallel, being 43-57, 43-56, and 43-56 for the three groups
of students .· The 7th p rcentile , wvich f alls a t 36 for t he North
Central Region and 35 fo r the Uni ted States , for Messmer High School
fall s a t 37 . 7.
19.
Standard Scores
75 73 72 71 70 69 68 66 65 64 63 62 61 f:JJ 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 hI 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 28
Table IV: Percentile Norms for Test of Interpretation of Literary Material s (High School Level-Form B)
Percentile Ranks Corresponding. to Various Standar d Scores for Messmer High School Seniors (June, 1947)
and Public High School Seniors . Tested at Time of Graduati on from a General (non
trade) Hi gh School Curriculum
••• • • • Percentile Ranks • • •• •• •••
• Region No. of Cases Messmer IV ..
Messmer Hi gh (North Total High School School Centra.l) u. s.
1 99 2 99 2 98 99 99 3 97 98 98 2 97 98 98 1 96 98 97 2 96 97 96 1 95 95 95 1 95 94 93 6 93 93 92 4 92 92 90
12 88 90 88 5 86 87 86 4 85 85 84 6 83 83 82 3 82 80 79
13 77 77 76 7 75 74 73
IS 70 71 69 8 67 68 66
12 63 63 62 12 59 59 58 28 50 55 54 15 45 51 50 24 37 48 46 15 32 44 42 14 27 39 38 10 24 35 34 8 21 31 31
18 15 27 27 4 1l.J. 24 24 8 11 21 21 4 10 18 18 5 8 15 16 8 6 13 14 2 5 11 12 4 4 9 10 3 3 8 8 1 2 7 7 2 2 5 5 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 4 2 1
300
In Tabl e IV at standard score 48 there is a difference of 12
percentil es from the ~rth Centr al graduates and of ' lO percentiles
from the U~ S. graduates . Again 1essmer High School has the greater
concentration of graduates in the middl e half wi th a span of only
10 standard scores (J~6-56) t o 13 (43-56) for Region IV, and the same
for the U. S. The seventh percentile,. wbich again fall s at 35 for
the llorth Central gr oup and the United States group, falls at standard
Score 39. 37 for Messmer High School.
21.
2 2.
Standard Scores
75 75 73 72 68 66 64 63 62 61 &J 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 u9 48 Lt6 l~5 Lt4 113 42 41 39 38 37 35 34 32 30
Table V: Percentile rJorms for Test of General Mathematical Ability (High School Level-Flom E)
Percentile Ranks Corresponding to Various Standard Scores for Messmer High School Seniors (JWle, 1947)
and Public High School Seniors Tested a t Ti e of Graduation from a Gener a l (non
trade) Hi gh School Curriculum
......... Percenti1e Ra.nks •••••••• • Region
No . of Cases Messmer IV • Messmer High (North Total
Hi gh School School Central) u. s.
1 99 4 98 2 98 99 4 96 98 99 3 95 96 96 4 94 94 95 .3 93 . 91 92 3 92 90 90 h 90 87 88
12 86 85 86 5 84 82 84
10 81 80 82 8 78 76 79
14 73 73 76 18 67 69 7J 10 64 66 69 16 58 61 66 10 55 58 62
6 52 54 58 6 50 50 54
13 Lt6 46 50 19 39 42 46 13 35 38 42 19 28 30 34 16 23 27 31
9 19 23 27 16 14 20 24
7 11 18 21 12 7 16 18 4 6 11 14 3 5 9 12 7 2 8 10 2 2 .5 7 3 1 4 .5 1 3 4 1
288
Table V shows that the percentile ranks for the three groups
almost parallel from standard score 75 down to standard score 57.
From 57 to 32 there is a difference between the Messmer High School
seniors and the U. s. total of 3 to 11 percentiles with the widest
divergence at standard score 41 . The divergence between the Messmer
Hi gh chool Seniors and the North Central Seniors begins at standard
score 49 wit h 3 percentiles and x'eaches a peak at standard 41 with a
9 percentile difference . Below this point are 18 per cent of U. S.
group, 16 per cent of the North Central group, and 7. 2 per cent of
the t4essmer group. In this table the middle half of all the groups
falls at approximately the sarD.e scores 44 and 45 to 56 and 57 . The
7th percentile falls at 39.54 for theessmer High School group, 35
for the North Central and U. S.
23.
24:
Table VI: Pereenti~e Norms for Average Standard Scores on Five United states Armed Forces Institute
Test-s of General Educational Development (High School Level- Form B)
Percentile Ranks Corresponding to the Average of the Standard Scores for Messmer Hi gh School Seniors (J une, 1947)
Tested at the Time of Graduation
J vcrage of No. of Percentile Standard Scores Cases Ranks
71 1 99 70 1 99 69 1 99 67 - 1 99 66 2 98 65 2 97 64 4 96 63 4 94 62 1 94 61 5 92 8:J 7 90 59 10 86 58 10 63 51 12 78 56 13 74 55 13 69 54 II 65 53 9 62 52 14 57 51 15 52 50 14 47 49 22 39 4 17 33 47 17 27 46 12 23 45 17 17 44 9 13 43 16 8 42 7 :5 41 3 4 40 1 4 39 7 1 38 1 1 37 1 1 35 2
282
Table VI presents stati stics for this study .bieh were not
available in the original standardization progr am. ' As stated in
Chapter III , each student in the original study took only one test .
In this study 282 seniors completed the battery. Table VI, t herefor e ,
was desi gned to record the percentile ranks corresponding to the
averages of the Messmer High School seniors on the entire battery of
tests.
'the middle half of the senior class is concentrated between
average score 46 and 56. The 7th per<.'Sntile of the average scores
falls at 42.53. The median dcore is 49. 9.
No student Ms an ave-rage of less than 35.
25.
26 ~
Table VII : Percentile Horos for Five Testo of Gen :rel ~ucatiooal Devel.opnelJt (
'" School Level om B)
PorcentilG ' 3 Correspond · gtc ariO\l6 Standard S COl·til"" for e ssmer High School S . ·ors (Juno. 1947)
Tested at 'rioo of Ora uatioD
•••••••••••••••• .••• • Perce tile P.nnks ......... e· ••••••
• • Standard Test Teat Test Test Test verage Seores 1 2 3 4 ;;
15 99 99 99 98 14 99 . 6 99 98 73 99 90 99 98 72 90 98 98 96 11 98 98 97 96 99 70 8 91 99 97 96 99 69 9 96 99 96 96 99 68 96 95 98 96 9; 99 67 95 94 96 6 95 99 66 94 93 95 95 94 98 65 3 92 95 95 9u 91 64 92 2 ... 4 93 93 96 63 90 90 92 92 92 94 62 89 89 92 88 90 94 61 85 {}8 91 86 8~ 92 $0 8.4 B6 8 D5 h 88 59 82 84 8lJ 03 81 86 58 79 1 77 62 78 83 57 75 73 73 11 13 18 56 72 (f; 68 75 61 74 $5 69 62- 65 10 64 69 54 66 51 62 61 58 65 53 . 65 45 51 63 55 62 52 59 38 54 59 52 57 51 52 31 47 50 $0 52 50 46 26 4$ hS htS 41 49 40 23 42 37 39 39 48 33 20 39 32 35 33 47 28 14 34 27 35 27 46 21 1) .30 24 28 23 L5 18 11 30 21 23 11 44 14 ).0 26 15 19 13 43 12 8 22 14 14 8 42 10 6 16 11 11 5 41 9 5 16 10 7 h 40 7 5 14 a 1 4 39 6 . , 4 12 6 6 1 38 4 4 a 5 5 1 31 2 :3 4 4 3 1 36 2 2 4 :3 3 1 3$ 2 1 4 2 2 J4 1 1 4 2 1 33 1 1 2 1 1 32 1 1 1
Tabl e VII compares percentile ranks of Messmer High School
Seniors on the vari ous tests of th~ battery. It indicates that the
highest achievement v~s attained by the group i n t he i nt erpretat ion
of reading 'llaterials i n the social studies . Only 26 per cent fell
belo ;y- standard score 50 whereas 45 to 47 per cent fell below that
standard score on all other t ests .
In general the lOV>'est achievement was in the interpret ation of
s cience materials . Although the medians f or the five tests are close
at 50, 54, 51, 51, 51 respectively, in the science materials 22 per
cent are belol" standard score 43 as compared to 8-14 per cent for
t he other tests, and 12 per cent are below standard score 39 as
compared to 4-6 per cent for t he ot her t ests.
The percentil es of the general aver ages show that a higher
score on one test tends to balance a lower score on another test,
with tbe result that, although from 5 to 14 per cent fell below
standard score 40 on "t he iridi vidual tests , only 4 per cent .fell
below that s~~re in the averages .
27.
Chapter V
CONCLUSIONS A~~ RECOMMENDATIONS
General Interpretations
In t he i nt erpretation of t he dat a presented in Cr~pter IV
several considerations must be kept in mind. It is impossible to
establish the exact psycholo "cal attitude of the examinees. The
tests were administered arter the seniors had completed t heir f inal
eX6.minations on days when they woul d ordinarily have had considerable
free time.. This rmw have induced a free and easy feeling making for
careless or at least i nferior work . The ktlol'Jledge that the tests
would have no bearing on graduation, judging from random student
remarks, certainly did not add an impetus to prof iciency. Whether
the stimulation of school spirit and of contribution to a worthy
. cause may have balanced these factors cannot be ascertained.. But
it does not seem presumptious to say that , if graduation t~d de
pended on the results of these tests , more concentrated effort .. lOuld
have ::""an obtained, with a probable raising of scores and percentiles .
An individual case to illustrate this very point came to light
in the study. One student, '-0--, had been known to the administra
tion for four years as a student of extremely high abill ty who
consistently recelveu low grades . His general average fo r four
years was 82 . 38, ranking him 173rd in a class of 366. When the
G. E. D. testing was completed he demonstrated an intense interest
in the results . The compilations showed him high on all the tests
with the second highest aver age of t he class . The motive which drove
hi m to a supreme effort became apparent vrhen, on hearing the results ,
2c
he immediately asked whether they could be i ncluded with his tran
script to the college he hoped to ent er in the fall ..
V hat our student , 0--, hoped for , the r eturning veteran
knoVTs , i . e ., that the results of the G. E. D. tests may be used as
a partial determiner for college entrance . I n most eases he is
certain that t he results will have a bearing on his graduation from
High School. This knowledge becomes a motivating factor stimulating
greater concentration ru1d effort which should normally result in
higher achievement. It i s apparent that this factor ,vas not present
in our survey of Messmer seniors; nor could it have been a factor
in the original standardization in which each student took only one
test of the battery. We are led to believe, therefore , t hat seores
obtained on the basis of this survey, t he original standardizat i on,
or any other survey without the challenge of gr aduation as a factor ,
will not be unqualifiedly comparable to scores obtained on returning
veterans .
In all of the tests the analysis of data shows that the Messmer .
students in general are higher tl1an the North Centr al and U. S.
averages . There is an apparent concentration in t he middle . The
divergence in percentil es appears mostly below the standard score
of SO which i ndicates that the acrdevement of t he lower half of the
Messmer subjects is greater than that of the subj ects of the ori ginal
study.
The wide divergence in Test 2, Interpretation of Reading Materials
in the Social Sciences, demands separate interpretation. The Catholic
Church in its philosophy and t heology has always laid great stress
upon social problems . In an age when the world in general has become
more and more social- conscious the Church has constantly taken a
leading pl a ce in the presentation of such problems . It seems
plausi ble then to say that social -consciousness through a religious
atmosphere becomes more or less focal in the minds of Catholic
students, no t onl y t,p..rough religion instruction but also through the
inclusion of t he concept in other courses taught by religious
teachers .
It is curious to note that the results of tests 2 &~d 4 are
compar ativel y high, although these were the second tests on t\R)
successive days and one would expect the factor of decline in atten-
tion and fatigue to be in operation .
Messmer High School Norms
In deriving the norms for Messmer Hi gh School on the basis of
these tests it is imF.ortant that 'VIe first study t he recotlllJendations
of the Staff and Consultants of the Co-operative Study of ilitary
Tra ining and Exp.erience .
"It is r ecommended that a secondary school should grant a diploma i f the examinee satisfies either (not necessarily both) of the following requirement s , provided the legal requirements of local authority have been met .
1 . The cy.aminee has made a standard score of 35, or above, on each of the five tests in the battery.
2. The examinee has made an average standard score of 45, or above , on the five tests of the battery. " (1)
(1) A Guide to the Evaluation of ducational Experiences in the Armed Forces, ,Section lA, tlDescriptions and Recommendations . " ...
J Oe
The r ecommendation goes on to say that
Uin general, approximately 80 to 85 per cent of the students who are no' gr aduated from t he public hi gh schools throughout the country woul d meet one of the alternative requirements . " (2 )
(2) Ibid., lA
This l atter stat ement is verif ied in the Agent ' s Handbook .
"About 20 per cent of the extensive sample of graduating seniors tested throughout the country in ay, 19h3, vrould have fail ed the high- school G. E. D. Battery on the basis recor.lL"llended by the Amer ican Council on Education. " (3)
(3) The Agent' s Handbook, 6
A further i nquiry made of Miss Lily Detchen, now Director of
t he American Council on Education Vet,erans ' Testing Service in
Chicago, and originally closely as sociated with Dr . Li nquist in the
standardization program, brought this information:
"I know definitely that the requirement of a standard score of 35 on each test would have failed 23 per cent of t he group that actually were graduated i n the l arge standar dizati on group that was used in 19h3. The either/or (35/ h5) i s more lenient , but not much more so . Twenty percent of the seniors who were graduated in 19h3 could not have qualified on t he G. E. D. examinations In (h)
( h) Letter of Miss Lily Detchen, ugust 8, 19u7
31.
If Messmer . gh School followed the American Council reCOl'llIi1en-
dation, 265 of 282 graduates vrould satisfy the requi'r ements . This
is 93 .9 per cent passing, whieh i s a far cry from the 80 per cent
in th(~ standardization of 1943.
It i s of inter est to note too that onl y 7.4 per cent of the
Me ssmer seniors would fail on t he basis of a 35 standard score for
each test in comparison to the original study' s 23 per cent failure .
In tr-jing to establish a standard for ., essmer High School
various formul as were worked out:
35 on eacb test or a 45 average 35 on each t est --35 on each test and a 45 average 40-42-38- 39- 40 or-i 45 average 40 on each test or a 45 average 40 on each test --bO on each test and a 4S av'erage
93. 9 per cent passing 92 . 6 per cent passing 81. 5 per cent passing 83. 3 per cent passing 84.7 per cent passing 74.4 per cent passing 73.4 per cent passing
The recommendation of the Staff and Consultants of the Coopera-
tive Study of Military Training and EAperience allowed a failure of
20 per cent in the standardi7a tion. The fo rmul a requiring a s tandard
scor e of 35 on each test ~ a 45 average standard score most closely
approximates this i ncidence of success and failure in the original
study . In setting our norm we borro'\"l the j udgments of t he original
wor k in order to make it compar abl e t o t he national standards . This
norm has the added advantage of requi r i ng a balance in the educational
a chievement of the students tested, since the 45 average tends to
balance out the variation 011 t he individual tests.
The criterion arrived at in this s tudy is t he same as that set
by the Departments of Education of ,trizona and California (see p. 5) .
32.
Summary
On the basis of this study the following ~lmmary can be made:
(1) The June 1947 graduates of Me ssmer High School rate higher on all the tests tr~n do the subjects of the standardization program.
(2) The upper fourth of t he compared groups are approximately the same.
(3) The greatest difference appears in the lower half of the compared groups .
(4) The general level of educational achievement after four years at Messmer High School is higher than that of the schools in the original standardization program.
Conclusions
As a result of this study the following conclusions seem to be justified:
(1) The norm for granting diplomas at .essmer High School on the basis of the Tests of General Educational Development should be a standard score of 35 on each of the tests and an average of not less than 45 on the entire~tterJ.
(2) The diploma granted should be "unqualified" and the notation of G. E. D. scores and the average score should be made on all transcripts issued, so t hat the college requesti ng the transcript may judge the student ' s qualifications fo r college admission according to its own standards .
Recommendations
As a result of this study the fol1ovdng recoIl'.mendations are made:
(1) A study could be made of the correlation between these test results and the general averages of the essmer graduates involved to ascertain whether there is a significant relationship between teachers ' marks and the G. E. D. test scores .
33.
t .
(2) study could be made of those in the} essmer group who went to college , comparing their fresh.'IlaIl college marks with the scores on . these tests , to ascertain hether the G. E. D. test results could be used as a. pr edictor of f i rst-year college achievement.
34 ..
Bibliography
Accreditation Policies of tate Departments of Education fo r the Evaluation of Service Experiences and USAF I Examinations, Commission on Accreditation, American GOIDlcil on Education, i\ashington, D. C., August , 191~6. This pamphlet gives in c departments of education achievement of veter~~s
ncise fo rm the policies of all state for the evaluation of the educational r service personnel on active dut y .
The Agent's Handbook , Veterans ' Testing Service , American Council on ducation, Chicago , Ill., March, 1947 The handbook chiefly concerns a gency business for the Veteran 's Testing Service. It is valuable to this study for its revelation of the incidence of f ailure on higr~school G. E. D. tests .
Detchen,. Lily, Letter of , ugust 8 , 1947 The letter answers several questions regarding the 35/ 45 established norm and the incidence of failures in the standardization.
Examiner's Manual: Nature and PUL''p()se of the Tests, Norms for Interpretation of Test Results, Directions for Administering and Scoring the 'fests, Hifh School Level, American (Xnm.cil on Education, ~ ashington, D. e. , 19 5 The manual is necessary for administration of the high school G. E. D. tests . It contains information on purpose, administra tion and scoring of the tests, together ;nth the percentile norms for each test, listing on tables the percentile ranks for each of the seven regions which took part in the standardization program.
A Guide to the Evaluation of EducatioP~l E!periences in the Armed Services, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1944, 1945 A guide rook of information regarding service courses to be used by educational institutions in the eValuation of educational experiences in the armed forees .. It contains descr "ptions of courses offered to men in the armed services of the United t ates with recommendations as to the amount of credit to be granted to returni ng veterans by educational institutions.
Linquist, E. F., "The Use of Tests in the Accreditation of Military Experience and in the Educational Placement of la1" Veterans, " Educational Record, 357- 376, Oct . , ~ An article revised from an address given bef ore the National Association of State Universities in Chicago in April 1944. It contains a description of plans and procedures ffild waterials devised for the evaluation of in- service educational experienees of ~ar veterans together with a discussion of the part the college must play in veterans ' educational adjustment and an indication of the i ssues involved in appr priate edu~tional placement.
Peterson, Julia, Letter of March 26, 1947 A cursory statement of the method of administration of the G. E. D. tests in the standardi zation program.
35.
Policy and rocedure for Eval uating Credits for High School Graduation of Veterans , bulletin of the ilWaukee County Committee on High School Accreditation for Veterans and Service Personnel , lIay 1, 1947 A mi meographed statement of the policies and procedures for he administration and evaluation of G. E. D. tests for veterans of \',orld War II and for the determination of proper high school accreditation in Milwaukee County ..
36.
Supplementary Reading
The Bull etin, No . 1, "Accreditation Policies for Peacetime Militar.y Service, II Commission on Accreditation, American Council on Education , ~nshington, D. C. , ctober! 1946.
Callis , Robert , and Wren, Gilbert, liThe GED Test on Prediction of Journal of Educational and Ps,ychological 1947 ..
Cralri'ord , .Albert B. ,. and Burnham, Paul S. , uTrial at Yale Uni versi ty of the Armed Forces Institute General Educational Development Tests," Educational and Psychological Measurements . Winter, 1945, 261- 70 .
Donahue, ' ilma '1' . , "Universit y of Michigan Norms for the United States Armed Forces Institute Tests of General Educational Development, " Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, No. 2, 261-264, 1946. .
Eckelberry, R. H., "General Educational Development Test s" , Journal of Hi gher Education, 17:331, January, 1946.
Higher Education and National Defense, "College Credit for :!.iilitary Experience and for Experience in Civilian Activities Related to the War, 1l Bulletin _ o . 69 , .American Council on Education, Washington, D. C ~, July , 1944.
Milligan, E. E., Lins L. Joseph, and Little , Kenneth, "The SUccess of Non- High- Scmol Graduates in Degree Programs at the University of Wisconsin, u School Cond So eiety, January 10, 1948 , pp. 27- 29.
Preliminaq Report to Cooperating High Schools of Distribution for United s tates Armed Forces Institute Examinations, Fon~ A, Veterans ' 'i'esting 'ervice , American Council on Education, Chicago , Ill . , September, 1945 ..
The . Preparation by the E..'taminatiQns Staff of the United States Armed Forces Institute of FormsC and DJ . Tests of General Educational Development , High School Level, as equivalent forms of A and B. Veterans ' Testing Service , Ameri can Council on F:ducation, Chicago , Ill . , October 31, 1946.
Secondnry-5chool Cr edit for Educational Experience in Military Service, National Committee for Secondary Schools, National Association of Secondary- School Principals , Washington, D. C., October, 1943, 32 pp.
Sound 'ducational Credit for Military Experience A Recommended Program, American Oouncil on Education, ~ashington, D. D. , Februar.y 1943, 35 pp.
37 .
Tyler, Ralph "':[., "Appr aisal of Educational Achievement ained in t he Armed Forces, If Educational and Psychological Measurement, Summer , 1943, 97-104.
Tyler, Ralph '. "Sound Credit f or 'ilitary Exper ience , fI A.nnals of the American Acadergy, 231:58- 64, January, 19h4.
38 .
APPENDIX A
DlrrECTIONS PO. SUP~RVI nING TEACHERS (Do not r ead t o students)
1 . Get all students seated.
2 . Ask them to put away al l pencils .,
3. Give out the special pene Is .
4. Read "Directions for Students" on the other sheet .
5. Give out tests so that t hose sitting next to each do not have the same test . (With test 5~athematics-fnrnish scrap paper) .
6. Read the directions r ead t hem silentl y . test being given.
7. Ask for questions . call Father Kuehn) .
n th~ bookl et aloud , asking students to Read the specific directions for each
(If any extraord narJ diff iculties arise,
8. Tell the students to begin work .
9. When a student has f inished the f irst test, t ake the booklet and answer sheet and give him the other bookl et with an answer sheet to match .
10. NOTE:- do not allow students to leave the r oom until t hey have finished both test s (except in case of absolute necessity) .
li. Al l booklets , answer sheets, and pencils must be handed i n before l eaving t he r oom. Please be very careful in t his upervision.
12. During the writing of the tests , move about the room to maintain order, and answer questions of procedure . Tell the student nothing t hat vlill help him answer specific questions .
13. Early in the period inspect the work of each student to see t hat he is follovlng directions in mar king t he ans~er sheet. Be sure t he student is making his marks gea!l' black, and~lossl.' that erasures are complete, and that e ~s not maki ng irrelevant marks .
39.
APPENDIX B
DIRECTIO S FOR STUDEN'fS (To be read each day)
1 . NOTE CAREFULl .. Y 1 The pencil you are using contains a special l ead neeessarJ for n~chine-scoring the test . Please avoid resting t he point of t he pencil on your ansvror sheet while you are working. Do no t make any unnecessary mar ks . I .f you wish to change an answer erase your f irs t mark compl etely.
2. The pencils you are using must be returned with your answer sheet . They have been rented for use .. lith these tests .
3. w11en tests are given out do not open them until you are told to do So .
4. Do not Ilk1.rk or deface the test bookl et in any 'way by making calculations or checking answers . , e have borrowed them and must return them intact. Put all answers on the anmver sheet only--and onl y in the way directed. Do all side \vork for Test 5 on the scrap paper provided.
5. Because the ansvrer sheet will be machine- scored, you must make your marks heavy, bl ack , and gl ossy, and the answer sheet must not be fol ded or creased.
6. There is no extra penalt y for wrong answers .. Therefore , mark an answer for each question .•
7. There is no time limit on these tests . Therefore, you should not rush yourself . But do not wa.ste t ime. When you have f;nished the fir s t t est , br :ing the booklet and anS'lrer sheet to t he super visor f r om whore. you will receive the second test.
8. If you get tj.red, sit back a.'1d r elax f or a short time . Please do not talk or distUl'b those about you.
9 . Your graduation does not depend on this test . accept belp from anyone , because the validity be destroyed for the whol e group.
Do not ask or f the test .. "ill
10. If' you have a question during the examination hol d up your hand to call the attention of the supervisor.
4.0 .