1
Unit 5 Assignment: Achievement and Aptitude Assessment Evaluation
Maricay O’Shea
Department of Psychology, Purdue University Global
PS505: Testing, Measurement, and Assessment
Professor Delores Harrell
Sept. 29, 2020
2
What began in the 1800’s as educators in America articulating fundamental ideas, soon
became the platform for what would become a formal assessment of achievement for students in
the United States (Alcocer, n.d.). According to Alcocer (n. d.), French psychologist, Alfred
Binet was one of the first to develop a standardized test of intelligence in 1905 and by World
War I, standardized testing became the norm. For example, aptitude quizzes were given to
military personnel called Army Mental Tests (Fletcher, 2009). In 1922, when the first
standardized test was published by the World Book Company, it was designed to test the
accomplishments of students in grades two through eight. The test was created by professor of
psychology Lewis M. Terman, statistician and assistant professor of education Truman L.
Kelley, and doctoral student Giles M. Ruch at Stanford University (Standardized Test, Stanford
Achievement Test, Arithmetic Examination A, n. d.).
In order to discover what a person knows about a particular subject or learn about an
individual’s level of skill in a certain area, there are certain tests called achievement tests that can
be used. According to Cherry (2020), an achievement test is intended to measure a person’s
level of skill, accomplishment, or knowledge in a particular area. They were primarily
developed to help detect and support students in kindergarten through grade twelve who are at
risk of being left behind in school. There are sections on reading, language, and math with
multiple choice questions, short answer, and extended responses today.
To accurately measure the reliability of these achievement tests, it is important to factor
in the reliability of the test and include sources of error that could potentially increase or
decrease that reliability (Miller & Lovler, 2020). The four main sources of error that Miller &
Lovler (2020) discuss include the test itself, the test administration, the test scoring, and the test
takers. Additional factors related to these sources of error are the test length, homogeneity of
3
questions, test-retest interval, test administration, scoring, and cooperation of the test taker
(Miller & Lovler, 2020).
The Stanford Achievement Test, otherwise known as SAT10, not to be confused with the
Scholastic Aptitude Test, is a standardized test developed by Pearson to measure the academic
growth of students in kindergarten through grade twelve (Cherry, 2020). Each grade level is
provided a different test based on a set of standards in reading vocabulary, reading
comprehension, mathematics problem-solving and procedures, language, and spelling (Cherry,
2020). Developed in 1922, this test has gone through many revisions. In the 1940’s there was
one of the biggest revisions to the test, where eighty percent of the questions were changed (Lee,
2017). According to Lee (2017), in the 1950’s and 1960’s new tests were added and different
versions of the test at each grade level were developed. Lee (2017) explains when the 1964
edition was published, “the test had advanced from one graded subjectively by teachers to one
graded almost completely objectively.” In 1996, the ninth edition was published to respond to
noteworthy changes in school curricula and the necessity to afford continuous assessments in the
most important skill areas (Lee, 2017). Today, the tenth edition is used, and it was published in
2003 (Lee, 2017).
Standardized achievement tests have become a mainstream norm in public education
from kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States. To comply with federal laws,
students take state assessments. Although many of these tests have shown considerable evidence
of reliability and validity, there are a multitude of factors affecting scores on the tests that do not
stem from examinees’ actual achievement levels (Madsen, 2011). Madsen (2011) suggests that
one would have to consider the test-taking motivation as a factor, due to the varying levels of
motivation test-takers have to do well. Madsen (2011) continues to discuss the effect of test
4
anxiety as a factor. In other words, as much as anxiety could increase motivation, Madsen
(2011) explains that it could very well obstruct performance, decreasing evaluations of the testtakers’ skills. Finally, Madsen (2011) describes the role of prior test exposure and test-prep
strategies. Understanding which type of testing preparation is beneficial to the test-taker is
important.
Educational achievement tests can really pave the way for students in kindergarten
through grade twelve to their jobs as teachers, nurses, lawyers, etc. Each level of education is
the steppingstone to the next. In other words, one’s state test scores in elementary school could
influence the secondary education available, and decisions at the high school level can affect
one’s track after they graduate. For the high stakes of testing, it would be reason enough to
examine further, why some of these possible sources of error are bigger than the other or have a
greater affect.
The amount of effort a student puts forth on the standardized achievement tests plays a
significant part in determining sources of error that quite possibly have the most affect on test
validity. Madsen (2011) points out the importance of establishing when someone might be
trying their best and when they might not be putting forth the same effort. According to Madsen
(2011), maximum performance is the term used to describe “if an individual’s score on a
cognitive ability test depicts their best effort, whereas if an individual puts forth only an average
amount of effort, this performance is labeled ―typical.” This can be an extremely difficult task,
however, Madsen (2011) provides three ways in which maximum or typical performance is
determined. First, the test-taker must be let known that they are being evaluated (Madsen, 2011).
Second, they must know of and be accepting of instructions to reach maximum potential
5
(Madsen, 2011). “Third, the performance should occur over a short enough duration that the
examinee is able to sustain attention and effort,” (Madsen, 2011).
Often times students go into taking the standardized achievement tests with a healthy
level of anxiety that has a positive effect on test scores (Madsen, 2011). In hindsight, the
opposite is likely to happen if the test-taker is living with this tremendous fear that they will do
poorly and end up with a not so bright future (Madsen, 2011). Madsen (2011) explains that test
anxiety can be offset by comparing their results to those of their peers, with the fear that they
will do worse and look bad. In order to reduce test anxiety, Madsen (2011) suggests reassurance
be offered to test-takers, or provide test-takers with clear instructions, or when test-takers have
higher levels of general social support, test anxiety has less of an effect on results. In contrast, if
the evaluative part of the test condition is stressed, if the test is administered under unyielding
timed settings, or if test-takers are given negative feedback while they are testing, test anxiety
will have a greater negative effect on results (Madsen, 2011).
Standardized tests for college admission have been a controversial issue for decades, for
example the SAT and ACT displaying cultural bias against African Americans and members of
other minority groups (Roach, 2014). In 2002, an updated version of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, became the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) which effectively
made a federal role in holding schools accountable for student outcomes (Klein, 2015).
According to Klein (2015), NCLB was obtained to “advance American competitiveness and
close the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged
peers.” Since 2002, it’s had an enormous effect on teaching, learning, and school improvement,
as well as becoming progressively controversial with not only educators but the general public
(Klein, 2015).
6
The law requires that all students become proficient in reading and in math by 2014, as
stated by Roach (2014), which did not happen. Roach (2014) argues that the test our students
take today do not measure their ability to analyze and apply knowledge, that the curriculum is
too fine, and there are too many opportunities to teach to the test. Under NCLB, it has been
reported by Roach (2014) that students in low-socioeconomic status living conditions and
minority students attend schools with little to no resources, therefore not providing an enriching
education, rather more of a test prep course in reading and math. The pressure that teachers and
students are under to do well is unfathomable. Schools are constantly giving tests to their
students to determine a baseline as to how they will perform on the actual assessment. Having
the students take test after test, can seriously burn them out and ultimately bring the motivation
level down. These tests are obviously needed, however the high stakes that are placed on them
could be reevaluated.
Alarmed that American schools were not meeting the national need for a “globally
competitive workforce”, elected officials, corporate executives, and education leaders became
increasingly interested in setting national standards and accountability measures for our schools
(Roach, 2014). According to Roach (2014), bridging the Black-White achievement gap had
become a major concern for policy makers and stakeholders, however under the NCLB these
nationally attained standards have been almost impossible for our students to meet. When the
focus is shifted from teaching and learning to test scores, the balance of what little good came
out of NCLB to be offset.
With the education system in the United States relying heavily on NCLB law, the effects
show minimal student gains. This plays a part in teacher’s “pay for performance” pay scale,
7
which was rolled out by July 2014. Teacher’s annual evaluation now had ties to the performance
of their students on standardized tests. This has caused a great deal of criticism among teachers.
Due to the fact that the hiring process can be extremely costly, many companies find
finding the right hire to be of critical importance. This can become somewhat of a challenge, so
exploring a candidate’s abilities and true potential can be very beneficial in the decision-making
process. According to Brandon (2018), “conventional methods of resume evaluation and
interviewing are not always enough to determine if a candidate’s qualifications translate into an
ability to successfully perform in a position.” As a result, Brandon (2018) explains that many
companies are adding traditional employing efforts with tests designed to measure a candidate’s
practical skills and abilities. It is very important to explore these aspects of potential hires for
two main reasons.
To begin with, some individual will exaggerate or flat out lie about their experience to
meet the job qualifications and their abilities noted on the resume or in the interview do not
match their actual skillset (Brandon, 2018). In other words, having some sort of test that will
measure a person’s true potential can help employer’s weed out the phony candidates that will
ultimately waste time and money.
Another noteworthy point is that just because a person is capable of performing a task,
that capability was most likely established through experiences with some other employer or
company that has differing ways of doing things (Brandon, 2018). In other words, most
companies and employers give candidates a hands-on everyday exercise will help them to
perceive how they define and work through the process. According to Brandon (2018), it will
also support if skills from previous jobs can be effectively applied within the new company.
8
To be able to identify abilities and true potential, or to prepare for ‘real test’ situations,
one can use The Aptitude Test Workbook by Barrett (2011). The tests are typical of many tests
used for academic, assessment, recruitment, or selection purposes, and will help individuals “get
into the ‘way of thinking’ that is required when taking tests, see where they may be able to
improve key skills, and/or gain awareness of strengths and where they can take you” (Barrett,
2011). Barrett (2011) discusses how preparing for these tests is not cheating, rather sharpening
one’s skills. It is noted that failing at something is perfectly acceptable, but what would be a
shame is not pursuing a career that your skillset is clearly appropriate for and you just didn’t
know about it before (Barrett, 2011). That is the main reason why it is a good idea for people to
learn about their abilities and true potential.
To summarize, psychological tests known as achievement and/or aptitude tests have been
around for longer than our lifetime’s. Each test used will measure a person’s ability to be
proficient in a standard or be able to perform a task. The education system in the United States
rely heavily on standardized achievement tests for federal funding. Under the NCLB law,
students were expected to be proficient in reading and math by 2014, however during the Obama
administration gains were less than significant. To be able to learn about our strengths and
weaknesses, there are practice type aptitude tests out there. Research shows that preparation for
these types of tests would not affect test validity, but instead make people aware of what they can
and can not do in a particular area. It is no wonder that these tests have been a norm and a
multibillion-dollar industry in the United States today.
9
References
Alcocer, P. (n. d.) History of Standardized Testing in the United States. NEA.
http://ftp.arizonaea.org/home/66139.htm.
Brandon. (2018). Three reasons why it is important to assess a job candidate's abilities. OnStaff
USA. https://onstaffusa.com/three-reasons-why-it-is-important-to-assess-a-jobcandidates-abilities/.
Cherry, K. (2020). Achievement tests: How achievement tests measure what people have
learned. verywellmind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-an-achievement-test2794805
Klein, A. (2015). No Child Left Behind Overview: Definitions, Requirements,
Criticisms, and More. https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-leftbehind-overview-definition-summary.html.
Lee, T. (2017). The History of the Stanford Achievement Test. The Classroom Empowering
Students in Their College Journey. https://www.theclassroom.com/history-stanfordachievement-test-13822.html.
Fletcher, D. (2009). Standardized Testing. Time.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947019,00.htm.
Madsen, L. E. (2011). Achievement Tests: Types, Interpretations and Uses. Nova Science
Publishers, Inc.
Miller, L. A. & Lovler, R. L. (2020). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical
approach. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Standardized Test, Stanford Achievement Test, Arithmetic Examination A.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_694309.