A comparison of the value of high school marks and intelligence test scores in predicting college success

350 46 5MB

English Pages 171

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

A comparison of the value of high school marks and intelligence test scores in predicting college success

Citation preview

A COMPARISON OF THE VALUE OF HIGH SCHOOL MARKS AND INTELLIGENCE TEST SCORES IN PREDICTING COLLEGE SUCCESS

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education The University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Education

by Sister Elizabeth Ann Flynn August 1950

UMI Number: EP56178

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertaiion Publishing

UMI EP56178 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

(5ei ' ^ 1 T h is thesis, w r i t t e n u n d e r the d ir e c t io n o f the C h a ir m a n o f the c a n d id a te ’s G u id a n c e C o m m itte e a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l m em b ers o f the C o m m itte e , has been p re se n te d to a n d accep ted by the F a c u lt y o f the S c h o o l o f E d u c a t io n o f the U n iv e r s it y o f S o u th e rn C a l i f o r n i a in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the r e q u ire m e n ts f o r the degree o f M a s t e r o f Science in E d u c a t io n .

Dean Guidance Committee

Chairman

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER * I.

PAGE

THE PROBLEM AND P R O C E D U R E ....................

1

The p r o b l e m ................................

2

Statement of the p r o b l e m ...............

2

Importance of the s t u d y .................

3

Definitions of terms u s e d .................

15

College success .........................

15

Admissions program

...

15

.......................

15

C r i t e r i o n ................................

15

M e a n ....................................

15

M e d i a n ..................................

15

Standard deviation

.....................

16

. .................

17

R a n g e ....................................

17

Differential

17

Predictive value

...............

Inter-quartile range

............................

Coefficient of correlation

.............

17

Probable error

...................

18

Critical ratio

.........................

19

Method of p r o c e d u r e .......................

19

Delimitation of the study and sources of

II.

d a t a ....................................

23

Plan of o r g a n i z a t i o n .....................

25

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

..............

27

iii CHAPTER

PAGE

S u m m a r y .................................. III.

51

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND COLLEGE SUCCESS BASED UPON SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE C R I T E R I A ............... ..

........... ..

Evaluation of the measuring instrument

.

53

. .

5^

Relationship of Otis intelligence quotient to college s u c c e s s .....................

57 J6

Summary and conclusions ..................... IV.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL GRADE POINT AVERAGES AND COLLEGE MARKS Introduction

........

............................

77 77

Relationship between high school average and general

achievement in college

...

High school

average and college average .

High school

average and Mean Cooperative

78 78

80

s c o r e s ...................................... Relationship of individual high school sub­ jects to the college a v e r a g e ...........

84

High school

English and college average .

84

High school

language and college average.

86

High school

mathematics and college aver­

age

87

High school social studies and college a v e r a g e ....................................

90

iv CHAPTER

PAGE

High school science and college average .

92

C o n c l u s i o n s ..............................

92

Relationship between individual subjects on high school and on college level

. . . .

High school English and college English .

95 '95

High school English and Cooperative Eng­ lish t e s t ..............................

95

High school social studies and college social studies

.......................

97

High school mathematics and college m a t h e m a t i c s ............................ High school science and college science .

101 103

High school foreign language and college .....................

105

Summary and conclusions .................

106

foreign language

V.

VI.

VII.

RELATIVE VALUE OF HIGH SCHOOL MARKS TRANSFER­ RED FROM VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS .............

Ill

Summary and conclusions .................

123

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS FROM VARIOUS INTELLI­ GENCE LEVELS WHO SUCCEED IN COLLEGE . . . .

125

Summary and conclusions .................

139

SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S .....................

142

S u m m a r y ....................................

142

C o n c l u s i o n s ................................

148

V

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

PAGE ..........................................

153

TABLE

I.

PAGE

Medians and.Range of Coefficients of Cor­ relation between Intelligence and Col­ lege Average Pound before 193^

II.

. . . . .

37

Coefficients of Correlation between Intelli­ gence Tests and Subject Averages on College Level As Reported in Segel’s S u m m a r y ..................................

III.

40

Distribution of Intelligence Quotients and College Grade point Averages Computed from a Weighted S c a l e ...................

IV.

Distribution of Intelligence Quotients and Grade Point Averages

V.

for College English.

6l

Distribution of Intelligence Quotients and Grade Point Averages

VI.

58

63

for College Science

Distribution of Intelligence Quotients and Grade Point Averages for College L a n g u a g e s .............................

VII.

.

65

Distribution of Intelligence Quotients and Grade Point Averages for College M a t h e m a t i c s ..............................

VIII.

67

Distribution of Intelligence Quotients and Grade Point Averages for College Social S t u d i e s ............

69

vii TABLE

IX.

PAGE

Distribution of Intelligence Quotients and Average Graded Scores on Cooperative English, Current Events, and General Culture Tests ............................

X.

Coefficients of Correlation between Otis I.Q. and Various Criteria of Success

XI.

XII.

71

. .

7^

Grade Point Averages in Five Subjects . .

79

Distribution of High School and College

Distribution of High School Averages and Mean Graded Scores on Cooperative Eng­ lish, Current Events, and General Culture T e s t s ....................................

XIII.

8l

Distribution of High School Averages and Graded Score on Cooperative General Culture T e s t ............................

XIV.

Relationship between High School English Marks and General College Average . . . .

XV.

...

89

Relationship between High School Social Studies and General College Average . . .

XVIII.

88

Relationship between High School Mathe­ matics and General College Average

XVII.

83

Relationship between High School Foreign Languages and General College Average . .

XVI.

83

91

Relationship between High School Science and General College Average .............

93

viii TABLE

XIX.

PAGE

Summary of Coefficients Found between High School Subjects and

XX.

College Average . . .

Distribution of High School and College

96

Grade Point Averages in English ........ XXI.

94

Distribution of High School English Marks and Scores on the Cooperative English .

98

.

99

in Mathematics . . .

102

T e s t ..................... .......... .. XXII.

Distribution of High School and College Grade Point Averages in Social Studies

XXIII.

Distribution of High School and College Grade Point Averages

XXIV.

Distribution of High School and College Grade Point Averages

XXV.

104

Distribution of High School and College Grade Point Averages

XXVI.

In Science ........

in Languages . . . .

107

Comparison of High School and College Grade Point Averages within Five Fields of S t u d y ................................

XXVII.

Mean Differentials between High School and College Averages for

XCVIII.

109

All Students . . . .

113

Comparison of Mean Differentials from Five Schools with Those for Students from All S c h o o l s ..................................

XXIX.

Mean Differentials between High School and

114

ix TABLE

PAGE

College Averages Computed through the Use of Several Different Groupings XXX.

. . .

118

Number and Percentage of Students Who Succeeded in College from the Five Schools under C o n s i d e r a t i o n ................

XXXI.

Distribution of Grades with Reference to Levels of Intelligence

XXXII.

121

.................

126

Percentage of Students within Each Level of Intelligence Receiving. Marks of f,B , u "C," "D," and " F " ..................

XXXIII.

130

Percentage of Students from Each Level of Intelligence Considered Successful in College W o r k .......................

XXXIV.

Percentage of Students from Each Level of Intelligence Earning Marks

XXXV.

135

of "B”. . . .

137

Summary of Coefficients of Correlation Found in the S t u d y .................

1^9

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND PROCEDURE One of the most pressing needs of the modern college is that of maintaining an effective admissions program.

During the past thirty years high school en­

rollments have multiplied unbelievably and, as a con­ sequence, thousands of graduates are applying at the doors of colleges and universities who several genera­ tions ago would have found themselves in gainful employ­ ment rather than in the pursuit of further education. Needless to say, such a heterogeneous group represents a great variety of cultural backgrounds and a wide range of mental and physical abilities.

Among these students

are those who, because of superior abilities and attain­ ments, are most needed by society.

It becomes the prob­

lem of higher institutions to select from such a large and diversified population the students best fitted for advanced work.

That the schools are not choosing well in

many cases is evidenced by the large percentage of fail­ ures noted among first year students.

Since the majority

of institutions wish to admit all who can attain a certain degree of success or who can profit by the educa­ tion offered, it becomes a point of primary importance to set up entrance criteria which bear a more or less

2 definite relationship to such success.

I.

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the problem.

A consideration of the

role which an intelligently planned admissions program plays in securing satisfactory conditions within any institution of higher learning led one liberal arts col­ lege to evaluate its present practice with a view to plac­ ing emphasis on that part of the admissions program which was most reliable and most valid.

Since students were ad­

mitted on the bases of intelligence ratings, scholarship marks, results of personal interviews, and records of participation in high school activities, the problem re­ solved itself into one of deciding on which of these four the weight of consideration should rest in accepting and rejecting applicants.

Due to the fact that the last two

named were thought to be contributing rather than determin­ ing factors, and that they were of such a nature that their evaluation must of necessity be principally qualitative rather than quantitative, the study was confined to. a con­ sideration of the relative predictive value of the in­ telligence rating and of scholastic marks. The purpose of the study, therefore was (l) to de­ termine the relative importance of an intelligence test

and of high school marks in an admissions program* (2) to compare the prognostic value of high school marks trans­ ferred from several different institutions and (3) to de­ termine the percentage of college students from various intelligence levels who maintain satisfactory grade point averages. Importance of the study.

If it be true that the

level of success of a college is to a great extent deter­ mined by the number and character of its student personnel the importance of the admissions program is self evident. Even though the term "admissions" includes much more than an attempt to set up entrance requirements, nevertheless, effective criteria by which a school may predict the pro­ bable success or failure of students seeking admission constitute a major factor in such a program. Several considerations point to the fact that final answers in admissions have not been found.

Kurtz,1 in a

study of a large number of schools, found that approxi­ mately 40 per cent of entering freshmen fail during the

1 Paul R. Kurtz, "A Study of the Entrance Require­ ments of State and Certain Private or Endowed Universities, (unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1931)* p.

initial year.

In a rather comprehensive survey carried on

at Michigan State College to determine why youth leave school, it was found that 10 per cent of those making low grades were of average or above average ability as estimatp ed from entrance tests. Another 10 per cent of those who left college because of the Inability to maintain a suffi­ ciently high grade point average were students of below average intelligence who had been admitted provisionally on the basis of acceptable grades in high school.

While it

would have been interesting to know what proportion of students in each of the two groups named above remained in college, the statements do suffice to show that serious difficulties are still being encountered in the admissions programs, difficulties which make it possible for a large number of students to enter college, carry along rather aimlessly for a year, and then leave without having gain­ ed much profit from their college experiences. Undoubtedly, one factor which has made the prob­ lem of selecting students for college so difficult is the number and type of high school graduates.

Compulsory

school laws, together with reorganization and development

2 F. T. Mitchell, "Why Freshmen Leave College," Journal of Higher Education, 13:95-100, February, 19^-2.

5 of the high school program have caused large numbers of students to flock to the secondary schools.

In place of

the 383,000 students attending grades ten, eleven, and twelve in 1900, there were 4,268,000 in 1946.

The entire

secondary population including grades seven to twelve rose during the same years from 2,808,000 to 10,342,000?

Further-

*

more, the holding power of the secondary school has in­ creased, thus making it possible for more students to com­ plete their high school education.

In 1907> Thorndike,21'

reporting for several large cities in the United States, found that of eighty students enrolled in the fourth grade, approximately five completed the twelfth year.

Bonser's^

investigation of 1920 brought to light the fact that for every three hundred forty students entering high school, one hundred forty were graduates.

By 1930 the figure had risen

United States Office of Education Statistics of State School Systems, from William A. Alexander, J. G. Saylor, Secondary Education, (New York: Rinehart Co., 1950), p. 233. Il E. L. Thorndike, Elimination of Pupils from School, United States Bureau of Education Bulletin Number 47 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907)5 H. R. Bonser, Statistics of State School Systems, Biennial Survey of Education, 1916-1918, United States Bureau of Education Bulletin Number 11, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), 1920.

6 to one hundred sixty out of two hundred sixty.

Even

though as late as 1938, Eckert and Marshall^ reported that three out of every five high school students in New York State left school before graduation, the net result has been that thousands of young people present themselves annually at the college and university admissions offices as*a result of greatly increased enrollments in the high school. That higher institutions have attempted to assimilate this large, heterogeneous group can be seen in the fact that college enrollments increased by 400 per cent during the 7 first thirty years of the present century. Such an in­ crease, although it has given impetus to a tremendous devel­ opment within the colleges, has at the same time made the admissions program very complex.

While it is true that good

students from the lower economic brackets are now making their way to the universities, it is equally obvious that a large number of less promising individuals must be recog­ nized and eliminated from the admission lines. It is difficult to say whether the entrance prob­ lem has been augmented or lessened by the differing

8 R. Eckert and T. Marshall, When Youth Leave School, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 193d), p p . ¥0-4d. 7 Kurtz, op. c i t ., p. 3*

7 philosophies of the individual colleges and universities with regard to the type of student personnel which they o seek. Benjamin Fine0 in his study of admissions in American colleges posed the question, "Who should go to college?”

Although the typical answer was "all who can

profit by such experience,” a great deal of discrepancy was found in the elucidation of this answer. *The responses were enlightening in spite of their lack of agreement in that they provided a key to the policies of the colleges. Listed among those who should go on to higher education were "lovers of books,” ”those with intellectual curiosity,” "the upper half of the high school graduating class,” ”a graduate of a better high school who possesses average intelligence,” "all serious and ambitious students,” "those with average scholarship and character,” "anyone without mental deficiencies,” "those with high standing,” "those with an I.Q. of 100 to 115*" "those who will become lead­ ers,” "those who will not be pressed financially,” "all students adequately

m o t i v a t e d . ”9

The attitude of the col­

leges is often modified by the fact that they are not able to make provision for better students who apply.

Thus, even

though 55 per cent of the colleges stated specifically that

York:

® Benjamin Fine, Admission to American Colleges, (New Harper and Brothers, 19^6), p. 105. 9 Ibid., p. 47.

8 all who could profit by a college education should be admitted and 25 per cent implied the same in their responses, the majority of institutions, with the excep­ tion of those under state control who are compelled by law to accept all high school graduates, choose their candidates from the upper percentage of the class. Pine^-0 does not see a conflict in this.

He calls

attention to the fact that while theoretically colleges would like to accept all who can profit, such a group might include 50 to 100 per cent of the graduating class of any one high school, and certainly it would include more than the 25 per cent who now actually attend classes under crowded conditions.

Somewhere between the theore­

tical ideal which is part of the institution’s philosophy and its more practical considerations dealing with its ability to accept students, every college must set its standard for entrance and develop a set of criteria which will serve as effective predictors of success or failure in meeting these standards. In addition to differing points of view as to who should go to college, the questions dealing with types of entrance criteria to be set up have added further to the complex problem of college admissions.

10 Ibid., p. 173-

During the

9 lifetime of the secondary school in America such hurdles have passed through many metamorphoses.

The Latin Gram­

mar School was almost entirely college preparatory in char­ acter and successful completion of the subjects which constituted its curriculum presaged college success.

Al­

though Franklin, in establishing his Academy, provided for a second terminal curriculum, the academy in general fell back into the college preparatory program.

The

first public high schools soon followed the tradition. While the injury to secondary education stemming from such - a rigid set-up cannot be denied, still it must be admit­ ted that the arrangement simplified greatly the problem of choosing future college students. Gradually, however, as new subjects broke from the old, colleges added them to their entrance lists.

The

result was greatly expanded list of requirements with a few choices according to the curriculum pursued.

To

Latin, Greek, arithmetic, geography, algebra, geometry, and ancient history, Harvard added United States history in 1869,. English literature in 1870, physical science in

1872, American literature, 187^, and modern language in 1875-11

Colleges continued for many years after this to

11 L. A. Williams, Secondary School For American Youth, (New York: American Book Company, I9W ) , p. 57-

10 develop a variety of subject bases upon which to determine eligibility for college work.

Entrance in almost every

case depended upon successful completion of and submission to a detailed examination in specified subjects. A second plan for admission was adopted in 1871 when the University of Michigan agreed to accept high school graduates from reliable high schools by certification rather than by examination.

Thus was born the accrediting system

in America and the practice of judging students by certi­ fication by principal or high school mark.^2

Not long after­

wards, as a result, associations of colleges and. secondary schools set the standards as accrediting agencies.

For

many years students who were able to fulfill their require­ ments were considered good risks for higher institutions. The problem of admissions was not solved with the first step in the direction of accreditation.

Very few

colleges agreed as to the group of subjects which consti­ tuted good preparation.

Land grant colleges favored spe­

cialization in the sciences; liberal arts institutions de­ manded emphasis upon Latin, Greek, and other subjects classi­ fied with the humanities.

From 189O on there followed an

avalanche of committee studies all aimed at securing great­ er articulation between secondary and higher education. The Committee of Ten approved laboratory work with one half

12 Ibid., p. 50.

11 credit and took the position that any subject is equally valuable with every other provided it is taught equally well.

At the same time, its members set up four curricula

and recommended that every college accept all graduates who had succeeded in any one of these.

Because of the

rigid pattern of subjects drawn up, the conclusions were agreeable to neither college nor secondary school. In 1899 another attempt to secure standardization was made by the Committee on College Entrance Require­ ments.

After.its definition of the Carnegie unit, higher

institutions began to stipulate the total work required and the standards in specific subjects in this measure.-*-3 The pattern of subjects inherited from earlier schools expressed in units has remained one of the outstanding types of admission stipulation to this day.

However, many

colleges also add the entrance test in certain fields.

By

1913]A Some colleges were substituting general comprehen­ sive examinations for individual tests in certain subjects. Following World War I, experimentation with the Army Alpha and similar intelligence tests was carried into the schools, and universities attempted to determine the

13 Ibid., p. 56 . Henry Borow, "Current Problems in Predicting College Performance,” Journal of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, 24: Pf- 26 , October, 1946, p. l8.

12 place of such tests in the admissions programs.

The move­

ment spread quickly and reliance came to be put upon the intelligence test in addition to or in place of the oldtype special subject examinations. With the coming of the second decade of the century, secondary schools, in order to meet the needs of their ex­ panding populations, began to add subjects not accepted by the colleges.

Thus arose the problem of inferior students’

electing to take academic courses because of their more ‘ "respectable” flavor and the more intelligent students’ choosing the more practical and in some cases more interest­ ing courses which set them off from college entrance.

While

the higher institutions remained firm, secondary schools clamored for an opportunity to show the value of their new­ ly developed curricula as college preparatory subjects. The results of the Progressive Education Association's Eight Year Study showed that the graduates of thirty schools who had been relieved of entrance requirements in order that they might experiment as they saw fit did a somewhat better type of work in college than did a control group whether success was judged by college standards, by the students' contemporaries, or by the individual students themselves.^5

^5 d . Chamberlin, E. S. Chamberlin et a l ., Did They Succeed in College? (New York: Harper Brothers, 19^2).

13 The implication was that the conventional unit require­ ment for admission fails to disclose the fitness for college of all students. The fact that colleges at the present time employ in varying combinations twelve types of entrance criteria as bases for evaluation is evidence that such institutions are not sure upon which criterion to place most emphasis. Consideration is given to high school transcript, rank in the graduating class, high school principal’s judgment, personal interview, descriptions of character from the high school, intelligence tests in high school, College Entrance Examination Board examinations, intelligence quo­ tient computed at the college, various objective achieve­ ment tests, high school diploma, high school extra-cur­ ricular activity record and essay type examinations at the college l e v e l . ^

Such diversity would seem to point

to the fact that the same criteria cannot be used by every college, and that there is still great difference of opinion as to what constitutes a good program for college entrance. It has been said that for every student of average

16 ’’From High School to College,” National Educa­ tion Association Research Bulletin, 16:12, March, 19'38•

14 ability who wishes higher education there is some college in the United States suited to his talent and interest. Whether or not this is true, it is certainly beyond doubt that every college must set up its own goals and select proper means of arriving at them.

This implies that no

two institutions will be.identical in spirit, aim, faculty, organization, or standards.

Consequently, it may be expect­

ed that student personnel will differ somewhat from college to college.

For this reason it becomes the problem of

every school to look into its own entrance requirements and to evaluate them in the light of its peculiar philosophy and practice.

The present study was inaugurated as an at­

tempt to compare the effectiveness of high school marks and of intelligence ratings, not with the average of col­ lege success for the country as a whole, but with the actual accomplishment of students on their own campus.

The pur­

pose, furthermore, was to determine to what extent records from high schools which yearly send students to the college can be relied upon as predictors of success.

Finally, it

aimed at discovering the level of intellectual ability necessary to maintain an average grade in this particular college.

In carrying out this aim,.it was evident that

the results of the many other studies completed in the field served well as supplements, but that they were not effective as substitutes for the present investigation.

15 II.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

College success.

Although college success may he

considered from several viewpoints, in this study it was interpreted to mean a r,C n mark or a 1.0 grade point aver­ age. Admissions program.

The admissions program was

used to denote the individual institution’s framework of procedure for judging and classifying prospective students. Predictive value.

The terms was taken to mean those

characteristics of a criterion through which future per­ formance may he foreseen with a reasonable degree of certitude. Criterion.

The criterion was interpreted to he a

standard in view of which judgment may validly he made. Mean.

The mean was considered to he the arith­

metical average computed for grouped data.

The formula

used was M equals Ml plus c, where M represents the mean, M^ is the assumed mean, and c the correction. Median.

The median was considered to he the mid

point in a scale of grouped data.

It was computed from

the formula Md. equals L plus N/2 - Sv> i, where L represents f

16 the lower limit of the class containing the median or the approximate median, N/2 is one half the number of cases, Sfo is the sum of the frequencies below the class contain­ ing the point desired, f the frequency in class contain­ ing the median, and i the class interval used in the table.W Standard deviation.

The term was taken to mean a

measure of variability which represents the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations of the scores from their mean.

It may also be considered to be the

distance above and below the mean which in a normal distri­ bution includes 68.28 per cent of the scores. 3-8 computed by the formula r 1923* ^5 H. A. Toops,

"The Status of University Intelligence

33 hundred ten questionnaires to higher institutions.

Of the

sixty-six who replied that they employed tests, nineteen said that they were part of the admissions program.

As

early as 1918, Rogers1^ experimented with tests of mathe­ matical ability in order to determine their prognostic value.

Terman1? in 1921 found correlations ranging from

.38 to .74 between intelligence and high school marks and from .25 to .62 between intelligence and entrance ex­ aminations of the achievement type.

He felt that the

Thorndike Intelligence Examination was best for prognostic purposes.

Another early study was that of MacBhail,-^ who

found sixty coefficients of correlation between intelli­ gence and college marks ranging from .13 to .71*

Perhaps

one of the first studies which attempted to relate intel­ ligence results to individual subjects was that of Roat.3-9

^5 (Continued) Tests in 1923-1924,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 110-124, February, 1926^ 3-6 Agnes L. Rogers, "Experimental Tests of Mathe­ matical Ability and Their Prognostic Value,” (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Teachers’ College, Columbia Univer­ sity, New York City), reported in "Register of Doctoral Dis­ sertations,” Teachers’ College Bulletin, 28:4, February, 1937* 3-7 l . M. Terman, ’’intelligence Tests in College and University,” School and Society, 13: 481-94, April, 1921. 3-8 c. MacPhail et al., "Psychological Tests at Brown University,” School and Society, 10:27-30, July 5* 1919* 3-9 w. T. Roat, "Freshman Grades and Thorndike College Entrance Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, 7:77-92, March, 1923*

34 Using the Thorndike Intelligence Examination, he computed the coefficient of correlation with the first semester marks in individual subjects as follows: Biology

.53

German

.50

Chemistry

.43

History

.64

English

.36

Human Progress .69

French

.42

Mathematics

.52

Physics

.58

Spanish

.57

Nevertheless, practically all such work concentrated upon the first year or first semester college grade. Seider,2^ at the University of Southern California, at­ tempted to determine whether prediction based upon intel­ ligence tests was equally valid for the other college years.

He concluded that the predictive value was lessened

for the two year period.

On the other hand, it was found

that the total score and the reading comprehension section of the Thorndike Intelligence Examination did give a lowmedium degree of certainty for English, that the predictive value of the total score became progressively better for mathematics over a period of years, that the value of the total with regard to foreign language also improved over a period of time.

Finally, he concluded that, while the

20 Seider, op. c i t ., p. 131-

35 reading comprehension section of the test had less predictive validity than the whole score, other sections were even less useful in estimating college success. The relative positions of men and women and of re­ commended and non-recommended college freshmen were taken pi

into consideration in Nettel’s ^ sity.

study at the same univer­

He compared his conclusions with those of Thorndike

in 1923; namely, that men tend to excel women in an intel­ ligence test, but that women tend to make better grades in high school and college, possibly because they worked more nearly up to their ability than men, and that fourth year high school grades correlated somewhat better with col­ lege marks than did the average of the four.

Nettels agreed

that women did tend to work closer to the level of their ability than men and added the conclusions that among non­ recommended groups, the coefficient of correlation be­ tween intelligence and college marks was higher than be­ tween the same test scores and the high school record; that the relationship between high school English grades and intelligence was greater than between intelligence and any other subject; that the relationship between high school

21 C . H. Nettels, ’’Some Correlations between High School Grades, Thorndike Intelligence Examination Scores, and College Success for University of Southern California Freshmen, (unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1925)•

36 English and college success was higher than that for any other subject; and that high school mathematics grades corresponded closely with college mathematics grades. A valuable study carried on to determine the rela­ tionship between intelligence scores and college success was that reported by Lefever22 in 1927.

Employing the

Thorndike Intelligence Examination, he found correlations between sections of the test and college subjects consider­ ed together and separately.

Again he made similar com­

parisons between college grades and the total score.

The

coefficient of correlation between the total score and the college average was .293; the relationship to chemistry was .497; English,

-365; sociology,

.21; and mathematics .47.

The work which had been done before 1934 was sum­ marized by Segel2^ in the United States Office of Educa­ tion.

The results are illustrated in Table I.

On studies

made using various editions of the American Council on Education Psychological Examination, the median co­ efficient of correlation was .48.

Using the Army Alpha,

22 David Welty Lefever, MThe Prognostic Values of Certain Groupings of the Test Elements of the Thorndike Intelligence Examination for High School Graduates," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1927)* 23 David Segel, Prediction of Success in College, United States Office of Education Bulletin Number 15* 193^* (Washington: Government Printing Office), pp. 59-63* 69-70.

37

TABLE I MEDIANS AND RANGE OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND COLLEGE AVERAGES FOUND IN STUDIES CONDUCTED BEFORE 193^

Predictive item

AQ Ah

_

_

_

.20 - .43

A t .38

0 fr-

ojd.

.32 - .62 •33 - -52

•58

.28 - .54

•50

c i t ., pp. 59-60.

1

Adapted from Segel*

Median

VO

American Council on Education Psychological Examination Army Alpha Test Ohio State Psychological Examination Otis Intelligence Test Aptitude Test* College Entrance Examination Board Terman Group Test of Intelligence Thorndike Intelligence Examination

Range of coefficients

A6

38 experimenters found a correlation median of .44.

The Ohio

State University Psychological Examination showed a rela- • tionship of .47* the Otis Intelligence Test .38, the Apti­ tude Test of the College Entrance Examination Board .58 , the Terman Group Test .30, and the Thorndike Intelligence Examination .46. Similar coefficients were calculated between averages of high school marks and those of college scholarship.

The

range of the coefficients for twenty-three studies made by outstanding educators extended from .39 to .69 with a median of .53*

Use of the American Council on Education

Psychological Examination In figuring relationships between intelligence and individual subjects brought forward median coefficients of .40 and .41 for English, foreign language, mathematics,

social studies, and science.

However, greater

diversity between subjects was found on many individual studies.

As an example, the work of Thurstone and Thur-

stone may be cited.

They found a correlation with English

of .52 , with foreign language of .38 , with mathematics of .35; social studies .35; and with science of . 5 5 * ^ O d e l l 2^ carried on similar investigations with

the Otis Group Tests of Intelligence.

Ibid., p. 70. ibid., p . 64.

Correlations ranged

from

.20 to.42 with a median of .32 . A summary was made of the findings with regard to

the Thorndike Intelligence Examination and college subjects. Median correlation with English was .36, with other sub­ jects ranging from .25 to . 4 5 * ^ S e g e l ^ found in his summary that the median of the coefficients of correlation between intelligence tests and college marks was .44.

Correlations with high school

records rose to .55, with general achievement tests the relationship was .54, and with specific aptitude tests -37« He concluded that high school grades were the best single criterion for entrance; next in order of importance were gen eral achievement tests, intelligence test, and specific apti tude tests. while

However, he called attention to the

grades seem to have high predictive value,

more variable than the other measures.

fact that, they are

The median coef­

ficient does not show the fluctuation of marks from school to school.

When that is taken into consideration the range

may extend from .45 to .65 or even further.

Detailed

reports on the findings mentioned above may be found in Table II.

^

Jtbid., p . 66.

27 Ibid., p. 70.

40

TABLE II

COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE TESTS AND INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT AVERAGES ON COLLEGE LEVEL AS REPORTED IN SEGEL’S SUMMARY

Study Segel's median of studies made before 1934

Thurstone and Thurstone

Odell

Criterion

Subject

Coefficient

American English Council on Languages Education Mathematics PsychologSocial studies ical Examina- Science tion American English Council on Languages Education Mathematics PsychologSocial studies ical Examina-. Science . tion Otis Group Tests

French Latin Spanish Mathematics Biology Botany Zoology Economics Political Science

.40 .40 .40 .4l .41

.52 .38 .35 .35 .35 .32 .4l .27 .34 .20 .42 .37 .28 .27

41 Between Segel’s summary of 1934 and Durflinger1s2^ In 19^ 1 , some progress was made in strengthening the rela­ tionship between predictive criteria and actual college accomplishment.

Borow2^

attributed the higher correla­

tions between tests and grades to refinements in teaching procedures, a greater variety of tests, new statistical techniques, and more objective grading systems.

Many col­

leges, moreover, were putting greater emphasis on high school records which on the whole have a better coefficient of correlation with college achievement than do intelli­ gence scores.

However, predictions from this source were

still only 16 per cent better than pure guess.

Moreover,

conclusions drawn from studies during these years were in some cases contradictory to those reached previously or subsequently. Wagner^O at the University of Buffalo and

2 Glen W. Durflinger, "The Prediction of College Success-~A Summary of Recent Findings,” Journal of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, 19 •68-78 ,. September” 1941^ 29

Borow, op. c i t ., p. 20.

3° Mazie E. Wagner, Prediction of College Performance: the Relation of General and Specific College Achievement to Previous Academic Performance, Intelligence Scores, and Sub­ ject Content Scores,” (Buffalo: University of Buffalo Studies, University of Buffalo Press, 1934), reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education,” United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 4, 1934.

42 Pink^-*- were in agreement that high school grades were the best single criterion.

The former study was quite elabor­

ate , in that it included a comparison of the two year col­ lege marks as averages and separately for subjects with high school Regent’s examinations, American Council on Educa­ tion Psychological Examinations, Iowa High School Content QO Examinations, and high school marks. Frank, at the College of Puget Sound, concluded rather flatly that psychological tests had little predictive value in the study which he carried on over a period of ten years.

In

his study made in the same year, H o r s e y 3 3 claimed that high school grades accepted from one school probably had about

31 F. H. Fink et a l ., "Further Study in Prediction of College Achievement," Minnesota Journal of Education, 14:9657* November, 1934. 32 Ralph W. Frank, "A Study of Probability of Pre­ diction of Academic Success at the College of Puget Sound,” (unpublished Master’s thesis, College of Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington, 1934), reported by R. Gray, '’Biblio­ graphy of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 4, 193533 idella J. Horsey, ”A Study of the Predictive Value of Central, Eastern, McKinley and Western High School Records in Relation to College Success at the University of Maryland," (unpublished Master’s thesis, The Univer­ sity of Maryland, 1934), reported by Ruth Gray, "Biblio­ graphy of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5* 193&•

43 equal value with those from any other, while H I l l 3 4 at Temple University simply concluded that on the whole the individuals whom he studied did approximately the same quality of work in college as in high school. On the other hand, Perkin’s^5 study of four hundred fifty students in 1937 showed that neither psychological examinations nor grades were good predictors.

Amond stu­

dents at River Falls State Teachers’ College in 1936* Malott36 found that the intelligence test was a more reli­ able means of predicting success than was the previous record.

Two years later Hanchey37 reached-the same

3^ Robert A. Hill, "The Predictability of College Success Based on High School Records," (unpublished Master’s thesis, Temple University* 1934)* reported by Ruth Gray* "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education*" United States Office of Education Bulletin* Number 4* 1935 • 35 Edward A. Perkins* "Predicting Success in Fresh­ man English in the University of Colorado*" (unpublished Master’s thesis* The University of Colorado* 1935)j report­ ed by Ruth Gray* "Bibliography of Research Studies in Educa­ tion*" United States Office of Education Bulletin* Number 5, 1936. James I. Malott* "Relation of Intelligence to Success in College Studies as Measured by a Standard Intel­ ligence Test," (unpublished manuscript* River Falls State Teachers' College* River Falls* Wisconsin* 1936)* report­ ed by Ruth Gray* "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin* Number 5 > 1936. ^ Gordon B. Hanchey* "The Value of High School Grades and Psychological Examination Scores in Predicting First Term Freshman Grades*" (unpublished Master’s thesis* East Texas State Teachers’ College* 1937)* reported by

44 conclusion using the American Council on Education Psycholog­ ical Examination.

S e y l o r ^ concluded in 1939 that rank in

class, rather than bare marks, had a positive relationship with freshman scholastic record.

Angell89 also claimed that

high school rank was more accurate than a combination of individual subjects, although he did state that English and geometry were more closely related to college average than other subject or group of subjects. During this same period several attempts were made to predict success in specific subjects, usually by means of aptitude and psychological tests.

O ’Sullivan,^0 at the

University of New York, attempted to secure valid measures for predicting success in o n e ’s major at the time of

37 (Continued) Ruth Gray, nBibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5, 1938. 88 e . C. Seylor, "The Value of Rank in High School Graduating Class for Predicting Freshman Scholarship," American Association of Collegiate Registrars’ Journal, 15:5-22, October, 193989 James K. Angell, f1The Predictive Value for Col­ lege Achievement of Records in Arizona High Schools," (un­ published Master’s thesis, University of Arizona, 1940), reported by Ruth Gray, United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5* 19^0. Julia O ’Sullivan, "A Study of Differential Pre­ diction on the College Level," (unpublished Doctoral dis­ sertation, The University of New York, 1935 )> reported by Ruth Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 6, 1937-

45 college entrance.

She analyzed the results of the New York

Regent’s Examinations, placement tests, psychological ex­ aminations, and college averages and concluded that in all subjects but French the Regent’s test was best.

For this

language the placement test seemed to have preference.

All

measures predicted the first semester college average bet­ ter than they did marks in the specific subjects.

Rich,1*'1

at the University of Kansas made use of a reading test and of intelligence tests in

order to find whether these could

be made to predict success in subject fields.

He found

that they too were better adapted to subjects in general than to a specific line of study. In the field of mathematics, Varnardo1*'2 employed several tests to predict success.

She found the Cooperative

tests to be the best single criterion and she also

^1 Mateel Rich, f,An Attempt to Predict Scholastic Success," (unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Kansas, reported by Ruth Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education,11 United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5* 1939* ^2 Gladys R. Varnardo, "A Further Study of the Predictive Value of Various Criteria of Freshman Mathe­ matics," (unpublished Master's thesis, Louisiana State University), reported by Ruth Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 4, 1939*

46 concluded that psychological examinations and English placement and reading tests compared favorably with the. Cooperative in predicting mathematical success.

On the

other hand, all high school mathematics marks were con­ sidered more reliable than those for the last two years. M a r s h a l l ^

employed the American Psychological Examina­

tion, the Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test, and the Columbia University Algebra Test to determine ability to predict success.

However, he found that high school algebra

grades constituted a better criterion. Perhaps the subject which draws most attention in admission studies and the one most nearly related to general intelligence is college English.

H e n r y k at Sam

Houston State Teachers’ College used the Cross English Test, Cooperative English Test and the American Council on Education Psychological Examination for predicting freshman and sophomore marks.

The best criterion for

freshmen was the Cooperative.

American Council and

Cooperative stood equal in predicting sophomore performance.

^3 m . V. Marshall, "Some Factors Which Influence Success in College Algebra,” Mathematics Teacher, 32:17274, April, 1939^ M. P. Henry, ’’Predicting Ability to Succeed in College English,” (unpublished Master’s thesis, Sam Houston State Teachers’ College), reported by Ruth Gray, "Biblio­ graphy of Research Studies in Education,” United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 193B.

47 In spite of the difference bn the first year level* these two measures combined were not better than either alone. M y e r s ^ made use of the Cooperative English* the Cool Literature Acquaintance Test and the Thurstone Psy­ chological Examination.

However* he found none of these

significant for prognostic purposes. All studies of college prognosis made between 1934 * 46 and 1940 were summarized by Durlinger.

During this

period the median coefficient of intelligence tests with college marks rose significantly from .44 as reported by Segel to .52.

Some of the more outstanding studies were

those of Butsch* Constance* Durflinger* Manning* and R oa t . The range of coefficients was from .41 to .67; the lowest median was that for men on the American Psychological Examination in a study carried on by Constance at the University of Oregon* and the highest was that for the Otis Self Administering Test of Mental Ability computed in Manning’s study at Ursinius University.

^5 Bruce Myers* "Predictive Value of Alabama Freshman Testing Program*" (unpublished Master’s thesis* George Peabody College)* reported by Ruth Gray* "Biblio­ graphy of Research Studies in Education*" United States Office of Education Bulletin* Number 19367 ^ Glen W. Durflinger* "The Prediction of College Success--A Summary of Recent Findings*" American Associa­ tion of Collegiate Registrars’ Journal* 19: 68-78* September* 1941.

48 The gradual growth in the relative value of intel­ ligence tests as predictive factors can he seen in the medians obtained in each of the five major summaries of studies.

Harl Douglass, reporting for 160 studies in

1931> computed a median coefficient of correlation of .45; L. B. Kinney in 1932 reported .445 for 442 studies; Segel’s median of .44 in 1934 represented 100 studies, while in the same year Mazie Wagner computed a median of .50 for 39 studies.

Durflingerfs median of .52 covered

47 studies. Durlfinger attributed the increase to the fact that tests designed for college students probably measured factors present in school grades better than did the older tests.

He added, furthermore, that col­

lege instructors made use of intelligence tests in arriv­ ing at grades and that college marks are based upon course examinations with a closer relationship to intelli­ gence than was the case in 1933 - ^ The median coefficient of correlation between con­ tent examinations and college scholarship, on the other hand, dropped from the earlier summaries’ .55 and .56 to

Ibid., p. 72. ^8 Ibid., p. 75.

49 .475 in 1941.

However, because the twenty studies collect­

ed as opposed to Douglass1 sixty-seven and Wagner’s eighty-eight were too few to represent a significant dif­ ference, the discrepancy is probably not important.

The

slight drop can also be accounted for in part by the fact that since some courses are not on the required list, many students are not prepared to take content examina­ tions in all subjects. The value of the high school record, although vari­ able in the individual cases, continued its supreme position with a coefficient of correlation of .55*

How­

ever, Durflinger concluded that because of the fact that the fall in the coefficient of the achievement examina­ tion was not significant, it would be easier to administer a two hour entrance test than to assemble the high school transcript, since both had about the same predictive value. Studies made since 1941 have brought to light some interesting facts.

Votaw^9 used the American Council

Psychological, the Cooperative English Examination, and Kirkpatrick’s Use of Library and Study Materials Test in admitting four hundred twelve freshmen at Southwest Texas

David P. Votaw, ,fA Comparison of Test Scores of Entering College Freshmen as Instruments for Predicting Subsequent Scholarship ,t1 Journal of Educational Research, 40:215-19, November, 1946.

50 State College.

After comparing these with the first year

college marks, he concluded that the library test had the highest predictive value.

Eucher50 attempted to determine the significance of marks from several North Carolina high schools.

He noted

that when high school averages were considered with refer­ ence to the high school attended, the difference in the level of grades between secondary and higher institutions was not uniform.

After ranking students according to

high school average and again according to college marks, he used a regression formula to compute the expected achievement of each student.

From this he computed the

differential between expected achievement and actual achievement.

The conclusion he reached was that there is

a significance difference between the marks transferred from some high school and those sent from others. Very high coefficients were found between high school and college marks in a rather unusual school environ­ ment by Ben Ashmore.51

At the Model High School of Eastern

Kentucky State Teachers’ College, where 40 per cent of

50 Franklin C. Eucher, "The Significance of North Carolina High School Marks," High School Journal, 26:30-36, June, 19^6. Ben Ashmore, "High School Marks as Indicators of College Success," Journal of American Association of Collegiate Registrars, 21:219-30, January, 19^6.

51 the teachers had been in the school ten years and 60 per cent eight years, correlations of .80 and .83 were made between high school grades and first semester college marks.

The coefficient between intelligence quotient and

college grades for the first semester was .45; for second semester and first year it was .52 and .6 2 . Summary.

No perfect measuring device has been found,

but relationships between intelligence, content examinations, or high school records and college success were sufficient­ ly close to warrant their use for restricted guidance in the admissions program.

The subjective element in teachers'

grades, the fact that achievement includes many other fac­ tors besides scholastic ability and the low validity of some intelligence tests' for prognostic purposes were found to add materially to the problem.

However, the objection

to the use of the high school record was at least partial­ ly obviated when teachers made use of objective criteria as well as subjective grading. Originally past performance and scores on entrance examinations formed the bases for admission.

However

when the testing movement began educators at some schools and colleges experimented with intelligence examinations to determine their value for admissions.

Although such

instruments were most satisfactory only in differentiating

52 those at the extremes of the scales, they were found to have their use in the setting up of entrance criteria. The advent of the Army Alpha and Beta during the first World War proved to he the opening of a new era of experi­ mentation with tests and transcripts to determine the best bases for admission.

Through the summaries of Segel,

Douglass, Wagner and Durflinger can be traced the gradual rise of the coefficients of correlation for intelligence tests as single variables and the rather consistent degree of relationship between content examinations and college marks, together with the maintenance of the highest co­ efficient by the high school record.

Even with the amount

of work which has been done of the subject, because of variations in individual studies, it was found to be imperative that each college or university discover the relative value of these criteria in its own program of admissions.

CHAPTER III

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND COLLEGE SUCCESS BASED UPON SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE CRITERIA The section of the investigation dealt with in this chapter represented an attempt to determine the predictive value of the intelligence quotient in the admissions pro­ gram.

The evaluation of the Otis Self Administering Test

of Mental Ability as a measuring instrument was based upon the conclusions of studies which involved its use and upon the opinion of those versed in the field of mental measure­ ments.

Correlations between the Otis intelligence quotient

and average college marks and between the intelligence of those taking individual subjects and the marks in those subjects were computed as a means of determining the rela­ tionship between the results of the psychological test and success based upon a subjective criterion; namely, college marks.

Finally, the same process was repeated

using the mean graded score on the Cooperative English, Current Events, and General Culture Tests administered at the end of the sophomore year in college in place of teachers’ grades.

In this way the value of the intelli­

gence quotient was found with regard to a more objective measurement of college achievement.

From these calcula­

tions conclusions with regard to using the mental test

54 as an entrance criterion were drawn.

I.

EVALUATION OF THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT

According to Traxler*1 the Otis Self Administering Test of Mental Ability* Higher Examination* is one of the most widely used tests of mental ability.

Under very

simple administrative and scoring conditions* it provides a mental age and an intelligence quotient.

The latter is

found by the deviation method instead of the usual MA/CA method.

It consists of seventy-five items* most of which

are verbal* although there is a small amount of numerical and spatial material in the test.

The working time is

thirty minutes* although the test can be administered with twenty minute time limit and the scores equated.

For

the four forms the publisher reports a reliability co­ efficient of .9 2 . Broom's^ use of the test seemed to contradict an earlier statement of Symonds3 that the forms were not equal.

York:

^ Arthur E. Traxler* Techniques of Guidance * (New Harper and Brothers* 1945)* p5 57-

^ E. M. Broom* ’’How Constant Is the I.Q.?” of Educational Research* 22:53-55* June* 1939-

Journal

3 P. M. Symonds* ’’Choice of Items of a Test on Basis of Difficulty*” Journal of Educational Psychology* 20:481-93* November* 1929*

.55 He found practically no increase in score toy changing forms, except for a very small familiarity advantage. In seventy-two cases out of one hundred, no material change in score was noted. Traxler,^ experimenting with repetitions of the same test using different forms between 1927 and 1930 found reliability coefficients ranging from .673 + *04 to .807 + .025 with a mean coefficient of .725*

While this

was not very high when applied to reliability, it was only slightly lower than that for the Stanford Revision of the Binet Simon test which was computed at .762 + .025*

Carry­

ing the comparison further, he found that on many adminis­ trations of the Otis, the intelligence quotient deviated 4.6 to 7*2 points with a mean change of- 5*6 and gains and losses approximately equal, whereas the Stanford Binet deviations ranged from 5 to 6 points.

Since the standard­

ization of the Otis was based upon the Binet, Traxler, over a period of several years, worked out coefficients of correlation between the result of the two tests in order to determine whether the validity was sufficiently close to that of the other tests.

During 1930 and 1931>

^ Arther E. Traxler, "Reliability, Constancy, and Validity of the Otis I.Q.," Journal of Applied Psychology, 18:241-51, April, 1934.

56 sub-freshmen taking both tests correlated .799 + -034; in

1932 the coefficient was .32 + .04l, and in 1933 -622 + . .049 with a mean of .718 .

Even though he realized that

the coefficient was rather low for two tests intended to measure the same thing, he attributed it to the low reli­ ability of the intelligence quotient.

When the figure was

corrected for attenuation, it was raised to .967 which would seem to point to high validity.

However, he did

find that the Otis intelligence quotient is on the average seven points lower than that found on the Stanford Revision of the Simon-Binet.

For these reasons he concluded that

the Otis was about as dependable as the Stanford. Other criticisms of the test were raised by Hoveland and

Worderlic^

who stated that the test was probably too

easy for adults.

In a study made on 8800 subjects from

an industrial and from an educated population, 40 per cent were found to finish before the thirty minute limit. When the twenty minute limit was used, only 10 per cent completed before time was called.

Over one fourth the

items were correctly answered by 90 per cent of those taking the test, and three fifths by 75 pe*4 cent.

5 Carl I. Hoveland and E. F. Worderlic, "Critical Analysis of the Otis," Journal of Applied Psychology, 2 3 ‘367-87^ January, 1931*

57 Furthermore, he found that items were not arranged correct­ ly in order of difficulty.

Hence, he concluded that in­

creased complexity on some items would increase the power to discriminate on the higher levels.

Crooks and Ferguson^

in 194l evaluated the test in approximately the same terms. Thus, it was assumed, that while the test was not a perfect instrument, the fact that it was quite reliable and that it compared favorably with the Stanford Binet for validity seemed to warrant its acceptance in the study. Moreover, the fact that its discriminatory power for the higher levels was of items

impaired by the arrangement and choice

and that the average intelligence quotient was

somewhat .lower than that computed on the Binet suggested that such factors should be kept in mind in surveying the results of the investigation.

II.

RELATIONSHIP OF OTIS INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT TO COLLEGE SUCCESS

The range of the intelligence quotient, as may be noted from Table III, for the two hundred fourteen students

^ W. R. Crooks and L. W. Ferguson, "Item Validities of the Otis Tests of Mental Ability," Journal of Experi­ mental Education, 9 :229-32, March, 1941.

58

TABLE III DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES COMPUTED FROM A WEIGHTED SCALE

College Average

1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3. 8 4.2 4.6 5-0 _ _ 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4. 1 4.5 4.9 5.3

Intelligence Quotient 140— 144 135— 319 130— 134 125— 139 120— 124 115-119 110— 114 1 105— 109 1 100— 104 95— 99 90-- 94 85-- 89 1 Total

3

Total

1

1

1 1 2

2 2 4 7

1 3 6 5 10 3

2 2 2 9 2

1

1

2 4 4 10

26 15 5 2 2

1 5 5 11

10 10 6

3 2 5

1 1

13

2 2

14

l

31 55

27

6 3

52 10 5 4 l

l

• 2

3

15

29

18

70

49

20

3

College Average Intelligence Quotient Mean Mean 115 Standard Deviation Standard Deviation 9-7 Quartile Range Quartlie Range 108— 121 Range of Scores Range of Scores 86— 143 Median Median 113 Coefficient of' Correlation .456 Probable Error + .05

2

214 3-42 .64 2.80—

3.80 1.08— 4.58 3-40

Note: This table should be read as follows: one student with an intelligence quotient of 110— 114 earned a grade point average between 1.00 and 1 .30 .

59 considered was from 86 to 143 with a mean of 115•

Al­

though the above mentioned low intelligence quotient may have been due to an error in testing, it was retained in the study as an item of interest to determine its correla­ tion with college marks and with objective criteria. standard deviation was 9*7 points.

The

As a result, approxi­

mately 68 per cent of the cases ranged from 105 to 127• The median of 113 was very close to being identical with the mean and the interquartile range of 13 corresponded well with the standard deviation. The mean college average in English, social studies, science, language and mathematics was 3*42 which was a middle f,C n grade.

Such averages ranged from 1.08, close

to "F” in every subjects, to 4.58, a high HB." standard deviation was

The

.64 points, so that 68 per cent

of the cases ranged from 2.78--a high f,D"--to 4.06--a low.^B."

The interquartile range and median correspond­

ed closely with the mean and standard deviation.

Upon

correlating the averages and intelligence quotients, a Pearson ”r M of .45 + .05 was found. significant and of medium value.

Such a coefficient is

It is, at the same time,

comparable to that found in the studies summarized by Segel.

The mean of those conducted on the American Council

on Education Psychological Examination was Army Alpha .44, and on the Otis .38 .

.48, on the

Thus, the present

60 mean exceeded the mean of the several studies conducted on the Otis previous to 1934.

However, it did not equal

Manning*s studies at Ursinius in which the same test cor­ related with first year college marks

.50 and .6jy nor

did it compare with the median of .52 for all studies reported by Hurflinger in 1941. In considering the relationship between the intelli­ gence quotient and the average of the individual subjects, a slightly lower correlation was found with college English. In this case, while the intelligence rating remained the same, the range of scores rose very slightly from 1.2 to 5*0.

The difference between the upper limit of the range

for English and for college average is understandable in that, while it is possible to merit an "A" average in one subject, it is extremely improbable that a student will do so in all subjects.

Moreover, the standard deviation of

.56 for English as noted in Table IV was somewhat lower than the .64 for the average.

The mean 3*58 was probably

about the same as the mean for the total, 3-42, when chance errors were considered.

This was seen in the fact that

while the range one standard deviation above and below the mean varied from 2.78 to 4.06 for the whole average, it was confined to 2.87 to 3-93 for English.

Thus approximately

two thirds of the students merited “C" grades in English. The coefficient of correlation between intelligence quotient

6l TABLE IV DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS A N D GRADE POINT AVERAGES FOR COLLEGE ENGLISH

College Average

1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5-0

Total

1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3*3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5-3 Intelligence Quotient l4cr--l44 135— 139 I30--134

1 2 3 5

125-^129 120--124

1

115--119 1

1 2 2

1

1

2

7

110--114 105--109 2 100— 104 95-- 99 1 90— 94 85-- 89 Total

3

2

10

2 1 1 1

2 1

14 35 36 7 2 2 1

7

3 118

1 2 3 4 4 3 8 4 4 1

31

4 5

2 1

5

1

7

2

5 6 7

l

37

4

11 14 27 24 57 54 12 5 4 1

1 1 1

2

1

Intelligence Quotient College Average 114 Mean Mean 3.58 Standard Deviation Standard Deviation .56 9-5 Quartile Range • 108-Quartile Range 3•11121 3.71 Range of Scores Range of Scores 1.2086— 5.00 143 3-40 Median Median 113 Coefficient of Congelation .40 Probable Error + .04

216

-

-

62 and English was .40 + .04, which was somewhat lower than that for the average considered as a whole. Table V shows that records for two hundred eleven students were used in computing the. relationship between college science and intelligence quotient.

The discrepancy

in the total number of cases was due to the fact that a few of the students for whom mental test ratings were available did not take college science during the period Under consideration.

While the mean science grade was 3*30,

which was very slightly different from that for the college average, the mean intelligence quotient was 120, as contrast­ ed with 115 for the whole group.

While it must be conceded

that the intelligence quotient sometimes fluctuates ten or more points, after considering the number of cases and the difference between the two means and carrying them to a critical ratio, it was concluded that there was a slight advantage to the science group.

A standard deviation of

10.2 provided a range one sigma above and below the mean of approximately 110 to 130 as'contrasted with 105 to 127 for the shole group; however, the simple range for both groups was identical.

The coefficient of correlation between in­

telligence and college science marks was .54 + .032.

This

was the highest figure based on teachers1 marks found among the individual subjects. A second coefficient lower than that for the college

TABLE V DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES FOR COLLEGE SCIENCE

College Average

1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3-6 4.2 4.6 5.0 Total 1.3 1-7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.5 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3

Intelligence Quotient 140— 144 135— 319 130— 134 125— 129 120— 124 115— 119 110— 114 105— 109 4 -100— 104 95— 99 1 90-- 94 2 85-- 89

1

1

1 2 3 3

1

1

1 2

1 1 2 4 3 l

2 1 5 6 17

21 31 6' 1

3 1 8 11 8

1 1 6 6 9 1 6 5 1 1

2 4 1

1 2 1

1 2

3

4

3

1 on

OJ

Total

-

10

12

91

32

36

11

2 3 13

16 20 31 46 57 14 4 4 1 211

College Average Intelligence Quotient 120 Mean Mean 3.30 Standard Deviation.684 10.2 Standard Deviation Quartile Range 3 .08— Quartile Range H O 130 3.94 Range of Scores 1 .03— Range of Scores 86— 5.00 143 Median Median 3.31 113 Coefficient of Correlation .54 Probable Error + .032

64 average was that between foreign language and intelligence quotient as shown in Table VI.

The mean psychological

rating for two hundred thirteen students who took foreign language was 113.

The standard deviation of 8 .30 provided

a range of 105 to 122 when the scores one sigma above and below the mean were considered.

These figures were almost

identical with those for the college average.

The simple

range was the same as that for English, 1.2 to 5*0.

While

the mean language grade of 3.4l and the standard deviation of i684 were approximately the same, there was a slight difference in the interquartile range.

The twenty-fifth

percentile for college average was 2.8 and the seventyfifth 3 -Bo, while for language these rnaged from 3*12 to 3«91«

This seemed to denote that college marks in this

subject were slightly higher than that those found In the other fields. Correlation of language with Intelligence produced a coefficient of .413 + .043.

However, in reaching such

a figure all languages were placed together and previous familiarity or lack of familiarity with the work because of high school background was not considered.

Thus,

students who took three years of a language in high school and who pursued another language In college were combined with those who continued their work in the same field. Such lumping may or may not have altered the value of the

65 TABLE VI DISTRIBUTION OP INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES FOR COLLEGE FOREIGN LANGUAGES College

1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 — 1.3 1-7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3-3 3-7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3

Intelligence Quotient 140— 144 135— 139 130””134 125— 219 120— 125 1 115— 119 110— 114 1 105— 109 3 100— 104 2 95— 99 90— 94 1 85— 39 Total

8

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1

1 4

1 1 1 3

1

2 1

3

1

2 4 7 22

26 5 2 1

Total

1

2 2

1 2 3 2

8 7

11 11 1

5 3 9 12

6 6

4 1

4 17 14 31

2 1

1 3

2

1

2

50

1

57

26 6

1 1

3

1 2

11

7

4

72

44

1 42

14

3

College Average Intelligence Quotient Mean Mean 113 Standard Deviation 8.50 Standard Deviation Quartile Range Quartile Range 105— 122 Range of Scores Range of Scores 86— 143 Median Median 111 Coefficient of Correlation .413 Probable Error + .043

6

213

3.41 .684 3.12— 3.91 1.20— 5.00

66 coefficient of correlation between intelligence and this line of study. In viewing the results of combining mathematics grades and intelligence quotient as shown in Table VII, it was necessary to bear in mind the small number of cases.

Ninety-three students whose scores were available

at the time of the investigation pursued mathematics on a college level.

Those who followed such courses merely to

strengthen secondary backgrounds were not considered.

The

mean intelligence for such students was 116, the median 113.

A standard deviation of 10.4 provided a range one

standard deviation above and below the mean of 106— 127> which was slightly larger than that for the entire average and for foreign language, although the difference was probably not significant.

Furthermore, while the standard

deviation was approximately the same as that for science, the lower mean carried the range down slightly.

Thus, 106—

127 for mathematics was found to be lower than 110— 130 for'science.

The medians for mathematics and college

average were almost identical, and the twenty-fifth and seventy— fifty percentile for the former 108 to 121 was exactly the same as that for the latter.

On the other

hand, while the averages for mathematics grades and for general college grades were about the same, the first and third quartiles were found to be higher than those for

67

TABLE VII DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES FOR COLLEGE MATHEMATICS College Average

1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3-8 4.2 4.6 5.0 1.3 1*7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3

Intelligence Quotient 140— 144 135— 139 130— 134 125— 219 120— 124 115— 119 110— 114 1

105— 119 1

100— 95 — 90 -85-Total

104 99 1 94 1

1

2

1 2

3

3 2

2 4 2

1 2 6 4 3

3 1 3

1

1

1 1 1

89 4

1 2 2 5 8 11 5

2 2

2

6

6

1

1

3

35

8

16

2

7

College Average Intelligence Quotient 3-40 Mean 116 Mean Standard Deviation 10.4 Standard Deviationl.04 3.14— Quartile Range 106— Quartile Range 4.10 127 1 .08— Range of Scores Range of Scores 86— 5-00 143 Median Median 113 Coefficient of Correlation .45 Probable Error + .057

1 2 6 5 15 9 16 22 10 2 3 2

93

68 the college average and even higher than those for science. Thus, in place of 2.9 to 3-81 for the former and 3-08 to •394 for the latter, mathematics marks ranged from 3-14 to 4.1.

This was the only field in which the entire

upper one fourth merited a mark of WB . W

The most outstand­

ing item was the exceptionally large standard deviation of 10.4, which was larger than that for any other subject and for all subjects combined as an average.

These differ­

ences were perhaps accounted for in part by the selective quality of the group and the small number of cases on the one hand and on the other by the slightly smaller range of scores.

The range one sigma above and below the mean

extended from 2.36 to 4.2.

The only other subjects in

which the plus one sigma was classed as ”B tt were foreign language and English. The coefficient of correlation between college mathe­ matics and intelligence was .45 ±_-057 which was almost identical with that for college average as a whole and smaller than that for science. The social eighty-fiVe cases

studies groups included one hundred as can be seen from Table VIII.

The in­

telligence mean of 116 was the same as that for mathematics and may have been

identical with all the others because of

the small difference between this figure and 120 for science on the one hand and 113 for language on the other.

69 TABLE VIII DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES FOR COLLEGE SOCIAL STUDIES College Average

1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5*0 1.3 1-7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5-3

Intelligence Quotient 140— 144 135— 139 130— 134 125— 129 120— 124

2 5

1 2 7 5 4 4 8 3 7 3 3 5

9

1 4 2 3

3 4

2

1

14 19 21

1

110— 114 1 105— 109 2 100— 104 95-- 99 1 90— 94 85— 89 4

1

3

115^-119

Total

1 1

6

1

2 2 11 20

1 3 2

1 1

2

1

3 1

2

23 29 40 40

1

1 2

10 5

2

1

1

1

1 1 5

9

11

79

35

24

11

3

Intelligence Quotient College Average Mean Mean 116 Standard Deviation Standard Deviation 9*7 Quartile Range Quartile Range 108— 122 Range of Scores Range of Scores 92— 143 Median Median 113 Coefficient of Correlation .43 Probable Error .043

3

185

3.37 .668 3 .08— 3.94 1.10— 5.00 3.33

70 The interquartile range of 108 to 122 resembled that for the entire college average.

Even the sigma of 9*7 was

identical with that for the whole group. coefficient of correlation,

Moreover, the

.43 + *043, while considerably

lower than that found for science, was above that for English and language. In order further to determine the relationship be­ tween intelligence and college success, the correlation between the psychological rating and an objective criterion, namely that of the mean graded scores on the Cooperative Tests of English, Current Events and General Culture was computed.

Here again, as shown in Table IX, the small

number of cases had to be taken into consideration. Records for eighty-three students who had taken Coopera­ tive tests and whose Intelligence ratings were available were used.

The sampling could have been increased If the

study had been delayed, since returns from the 1950 testing had not been made at the time.

The mean intelligence of

the group was 116, which was approximately the same as that for the other subjects, but the standard deviation of 14.4 exceeded that of every other group.

Furthermore,

the median of 110 and the interquartile range of 108 to 122 showed that the mean was affected slightly by the presence of several scores beyond the seventy-fifth per­ centile.

The same was true for the science group where

71 TABLE IX DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND AVERAGE GRADED SCORES ON COOPERATIVE ENGLISH, CURRENT EVENTS, AND GENERAL CULTURE TESTS

85 90 95 100 105 110 114 120 125 130 135 140 I •Q • ----- — — — -- -- -- -- — -- -69 94 99 104 109 114 119 124 129 134 139 144

Total

Mean of Cooper­ ative Tests

94— 100 87 — 93 80 — 86

2 1

7 3 — 79 66 — 72 59— 65 52— 58 ^5— .51 38— 44 31— 37 24— 30 17— 23

1 2 1 1

2 1 3 1

1

10— 16

1

Total

10

* * * 0— 9

4 1 11 1 1 3

2 1 2 1 11 2 1

1 1 l 2 2 4 1

0

6

2 2 1 3 2

1

1

1

22

20

9

12

9

3

1

Average on Cooperative Tests Intelligence Quotient Mean 116 Mean 35•86 Standard Deviation 14.4 Standard Deviation 1 1 .9 Quartile Range 108-Quartile Range 49 .55— 67-46 122 Range of Scores 11-Range of Scores 86— 98 137 110 Median 52.23 Median Coefficient of Correlation Probable Error + .041

I*4 5 4 10 7 12 15 15 3 2 3 2 1

83

72 eighteen students scored above 130 intelligence quotient and the resultant mean of 120 contrasted with the median of 113*

The fact that the interquartile range for the

Cooperative test average was approximately the same as that for the other groups seemed to bear this out.

The range

one sigma above and below the mean was 102 to 131> which was somewhat larger than that for the college average, 106 to 123 or for language, 105 to 122. The mean score on the Cooperative tests was 55*86, the median 52.23*

A standard deviation of 11.9 placed

sixty-eight per cent of the cases between 43*6 and 67*49, while the interquartile range extended from 49.55 to 67.46. The simple range was 11 to 98 .

The number of scores at the

upper end of the distribution was greater than the total for those at the lower.

One student fell into the 10 to 16

interval, two into the 17 to 2 3 > three into the 24 to 30, while four rated 94 to 100, five 78 to 9 3 > and four

80 to 86. The coefficient of correlation between intelligence ratings and the objective criterion was .66 + .041.

This

seemed to point to the fact that the Cooperative exam­ inations tested elements which were more closely related to those tested in psychological examinations and that the same tests discriminated more closely between high and low intelligence ratings than do college marks.

Whether

73 the ability to master the type of subject matter called for in these tests should be the criterion of college success, or whether ability to organize papers, make reports, and assimilate materials in other ways is more important was not within the scope of this paper to decide. Prom the foregoing it was found that in all cases, whether dealing with intelligence quotient or marks, the range of scores was large.

One standard deviation above

and below the mean included marks from medium 11D n to a high "C," except in the cases of language, mathematics, and English, when grades at the upper extreme were ”B . lf

In

the mathematics and Cooperative test sections, where the number of cases was smallest, the standard deviations were largest.

However, the coefficient of correlation for

mathematics was identical with that for the college aver­ age, whereas that for the Cooperative tests was .66, which was much higher. A comparison of the coefficient of correlations arrived at (Table X) showed that science correlated more closely with intelligence quotient than did the total college average, that mathematics was the same as the average and that foreign language and social studies were slightly lower.

The mean of the Cooperative tests showed

a relationship of .66 which was significantly higher than that for any other measure.

However, the small sampling

74 TABLE X COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN OTIS INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS AND VARIOUS CRITERIA OF COLLEGE SUCCESS

Criterion

Mean

College 3-42 average English 3.58 Science 3-30 Mathematics 3-40 3.41 Languages Social studies 3-37 Cooperative test mean 55-86

Sigma

I.Q. of group

Mean

Sigma

"r "

P.E.

115 114 120

.45 .40 .54 .45 .41

+ .050 + .040 + .032 + .057 + .043

.64 .56 .68 1.04 .68

114

9.70 9.50 10.20 10.40 8.50

.66

116

9.70

.43

+ .043

116

14.40

.66

+ .041

11.9

116

the This table should be read as follows: Note: average mark for college English was 3*58 (medium r,C fl), the standard deviation was .56 . The average I.Q. for those who studied English was 114, the standard deviation 9*5 points. The coefficient of correlation between college English and the I.Q. was .40, with a probable error of + .05 .

may have accounted in some measure for the advantage.

The

fact was that the science students, who showed a higher intelligence quotient mean and yet who merited approximately the same marks as the others, showed a high correlation. This may have indicated that the average students in the other classes were receiving higher grades than those in the science classes and that science grades discriminated more closely with regard to ability. Thus, it was concluded that, while the ,coefficient of correlation between average college mark and intelligence quotient ratings was not high, intelligence tests did have some predictive value which might be used with discretion in the admissions program of this college.

Furthermore,

it was seen that the results of such tests would probably be a better prediction of success or failure on some ob­ jective measuring instrument than in college marks.

This

was borne out by the fact that in some cases students with low intelligence ratings succeeded fairly well in regular class subjects, but approached the lowest end of the dis­ tribution on the Cooperative tests.

Finally, in surveying

the prognostic power of the intelligence tests for in­ dividual subjects, it was concluded that the intelligence quotient would be of more use in predicting success in science than in the other subjects, but in any case such ratings would necessarily have to be used with caution.*

76 Summary and conclusions. 1.

The Otis Self Administering Test of Mental

Ability, while not a perfect instrument, had sufficiently high coefficients of reliability and validity to warrant the drawing of 2. The

conclusions based upon its evidence. coefficient of correlation of .45 + .05

found between college marks and intelligence quotient was equal to the mean of those reported by Segel in 1934, for all examinations, but higher than those found using the Otis test.

It was lower than the mean of the studies re­

ported by Durflinger in 1941. 3.

The subjects listed in the order of the size of

their coefficients of correlation were science .54 + .032, mathematics .45 + .057 , social studies .43 +_.043* foreign language .413 + .043 and English .40 + .04. 4.

The

mean of the equated scores on the Coopera­

tive tests correlated more

closely with the intelligence

quotient than did the average of the college marks or the averages for the individual subjects. 5.

The intelligence quotient as a single variable

has some predictive value, but it should be used with discretion.

It would seem to predict college success as

determined by objective achievement tests better than that indicated by college marks.

CHAPTER IV

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL GRADE POINT AVERAGES AND COLLEGE MARKS Introduction.

The conclusions reached in this

chapter were drawn from a consideration of the relation­ ships between high school transcripts and college success. In an attempt to determine the emphasis which should be placed upon secondary marks as entrance criteria, the co­ efficient of correlation was computed between the high school average as a whole and the college average.

In order

to evaluate college marks through a more objective medium, the same type of coefficient was found between the high school grade point average and the median scores on the Cooperative English, General Culture, and Current Event Tests.

Finally, the process was repeated using the re­

sults of the General Culture Test alone. In evaluating the power of the individual subjects to forecast general achievement, the relationship between the grade point average for each individual subject and the college mean was determined.

Finally, a comparison

was made between separate subjects taken in high school and the college marks in the same fields as a means of evaluating the possibility of predicting success in an

78 individual subject from previous achievement in the same line of work.

I.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL AVERAGE AND GENERAL ACHIEVEMENT IN COLLEGE

High school average and college average.

As shown

in Table XI, the range of averages on the high school level was from 2.1 to 5 *0 , whereas those for the college were found from 1.2 to 4.7.

The mean high school average

was 3 «88 with a standard deviation of .82 ; the college average was 3*50 with a standard deviation of .60.

Thus

students’ grade point ratings dropped approximately .35— .40 in transferring to higher education. ence was to be expected.

Such a differ­

Furthermore, probably because

of the selective character of the group, the standard deviation for college was somewhat smaller than that for the secondary school.

While approximately two thirds of

the group received grades ranging from 3-06, a "C,” to 4.70, a high lfB ," in high school, the same percentage of students ranged from 2.90, a high MD,” to 4.10, a "B," on the higher level.

Although the difference between

high school and college grades one standard deviation below the mean was approximately .16 , that at the upper extreme was close to .60.

Hence, on the whole, students

79 TABLE XI DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES IN FIVE SUBJECTS High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3-0 3.4 3- 8 4.2 4.6 5-0 average -- Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3-7 4. 1 4.5 4.9 5-3 College average 3.0— 5-3 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3.8— 4.1 3.4— 3-7 3.0— 3-3 2.6— 2.9 2 .2— 2.5 1 .8 — 2.1 1.4— 1.7 1 .0— 1.3 Total

6

1 2 8

31

14 31

13 24

12

10

2

5

5 3

3

1

1

60

74

4

1 1

0

0

1

3 4 9 3 4

1 1 1

1

1 1 2

4

3

27

High School Average 3.88 Mean Standard Deviation .82 Median Quartile Range 3.06— 4.70 2 .10— Range of Scores

3 8

7

3 4

22

1

15

9 4

8 2 1

2 1

6 18 44 63 107 31

18 5 4 4

53

55

21

3

302

College Average 3-50 Mean .60 Standard Deviation Median 2.90 — Quartile Range 4.10 1 .2Range of Scores 5.00 4.7 Probable Error + .04 Coefficient of Correlation .53

80 who rated high in high school did not seem to keep the same advantage in college.

This fact probably furnished

the basis for the coefficient of correlation of .53 + *04 between the two averages. The medians in both cases were fairly close to the means which would indicate that neither mean was greatly influenced by extreme scores.

As was true for the standard

deviation, the range between the twenty-fifth and seventyfifth percentile showed a difference between high school and college of approximately .20 at the lower end and of .40 at the upper. The coefficient of correlation mentioned above stood well with those computed using the intelligence test results and college marks.

As was noted in Chapter III,

the relationship between college average and intelligence quotient was .45 + .05 . High School average and Mean Cooperative scores. Table XII shows the distribution of average scores on the Cooperative General Culture, English and Current Events Tests plotted with the high school averages for 100 stu­ dents.

The mean scholastic average for this group was

3.63* which was slightly lower than that for the one con­ sidered above.

Moreover, the standard deviation of .70

was also smaller.

Sixty-eight per cent of these students

81 TABLE XII DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL AVERAGES AND MEAN GRADED SCORES ON THE COOPERATIVE ENGLISH, GENERAL CULTURE, AND CURRENT EVENTS TESTS High school 1.0 average — 1.3 Means of scores 94— 100 81 -- 93 80— 86 73— 79 66— 72 59— 65 52— 58 45-- 41 38— 44 31— 37 24-- 30 17-- 23 10-- 16 * * * 0— 9 Total

1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3-0 3-4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5-0 — -- — — — — — — — — Total 1-7 2-1 2.3 2.9 3-3 3-7 4.1 4.7 4.9 5-3

1 1

1 1

2

2 1 3 6 4

3 1 8 9 4

1

1 1 1

1

1 1 2 3 4

2 5 4 2 4 3

3 1

21

6

26 15 0 2 1 2 1

1

2

2

2

4

19

30

11

l

100

Cooperative Test Scores Mean 6 l .37 Standard Deviation 16.24 53-08— Quartile Range 70.25 1 0 .00 — Range of Scores 97-00 5-00 63-14 Median 4.64 Coefficient of Correlation .397 Probable Error + .065

High School Average Mean 3>63 Standard Deviation .70 3 .06— Quartile Range 4.39 1.40— Range of Scores Median

1 1

1 1 1

1

4 6 3 10 8 22

1

3 2

82 ranged from .293 to 4.33 for secondary studies.

The mean

of the scores on the Cooperative tests was 61 .37 , the standard deviation, 16.24.

While it was not possible to

compare the sigmas of the two measures directly, it was noted that while approximately two thirds of the group deviated 1.77 intervals in grade point average, they ranged

2.23 intervals above and below the mean on the achievement tests.

The coefficient of correlation between the two was

•397 + .065 *

The small number of cases could urge caution

in' accepting the relationship, as would also the large probable error.

Moreover, the fact that the intelligence

quotient correlated to a much higher degree with the achieve­ ment test made it clear that the high school average was not an adequate criterion of success on this particular group of tests. An even lower coefficient was found in comparing the high school average with the Cooperative General Culture Test alone.

For this purpose the records of one hundred

students who had taken the tests at the end of the sopho­ more college year were used.

The mean high school average

of this group, as illustrated in Table XIII, was 3-70; the standard deviation was .72 .

While the mean was slightly

lower, though there may not have been a statistical differ­ ence, than that for the students considered in connection with the average of all the tests, the standard deviation

83 TABLE XIII DISTRIBUTION OP HIGH SCHOOL AVERAGES AND GRADED SCORE ON THE COOPERATIVE GENERAL CULTURE TEST High School 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 Total average 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 Means of Cooperative test 9 4 — 100 87— 93 80 — 86 73— 79 66— 72 59-- 65 52— 58 45-- 51 38— 44 31— 37 24-- 30 17— 23 10-- 16 * * * 0— 9 Total

1 1 1 1 1 3

3 4 4

1

1

1 2

1

1

0

0

3

2

5

1 1 1 2 3

6

2 1 1 2 4 7

3

1 1

1

3 1

19

24

1

4

6 6 2

2

2 3 5 3

2

5

1 2

8 21 21 16

1

3

1 1

16

23

2 5 2 0

7

1

100

Cooperative Test Scores High School Average 3*70 Mean 57.66 Mean Standard Deviation 32.75 Standard Deviation .72 Quartile Range 49:38Quartile Range 3 «06— 67.37 4.09 7.00Range of Scores Range of Scores 1.80— 97.00 5.00 Median 3*86 Median 56.43 Coefficient of Correlation .38 Probable Error + .013

- -

_ _

84 was approximately the same.

The mean of the scores on the

achievement test was 57*66 and the standard deviation was 4.65 intervals against 1.79 for the high school average. Therefore, it was concluded that some other measure be­ sides the high school average would have to be found for predicting success in this test.

However, it was noted

that the Cooperative examinations were administered at the end of the second college year.

Therefore, it was not

surprising to find that whatever predictive value the high school average had decreased greatly over a period of time.

It was noted in Chapter II that similar findings

were arrived at on this point in several previous studies.

II.

RELATIONSHIP OF INDIVIDUAL HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECTS TO THE COLLEGE AVERAGE

High school English and college average.

In order

to determine whether the secondary English average was more useful than the entire transcript in predicting col­ lege success, the relationship was charted between the two measures.

While the high school mean, as shown in

Table XIV, was 3.91, that for college scholarship was 3.50. This showed a decline of .41 between the two schools.

The

standard deviations for the two were identical, so that high school marks one standard deviation above and below the

85 TABLE XIV RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH MARKS AND GENERAL COLLEGE AVERAGE High school 1.0 average — 1.3

1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 — -- — — 1-7 2.1 2.5 2.9

College average 5.0— 5*3 4.6— 4 .9 4.2— 4.5 3 .8— 4.1 3-4— 3*7 3.0— 3.3 2.6— 2.9 2 .2 — 2.5

3.0 3-4 3-8 4.2 4.6 5*0 — — — — --- Total 3-3 3-7 4.1 4-5 4.9 5.3

1 2 1 1

3 1 5 3

1 3

3 17 31 10 5 3 1 2

44

72

6 1 9 3

1 .8 — 2.1 1.4— 1.7 1 .0 — 1.3 Total

1

4

1

High School Average Mean 3.91 .61 Standard Deviation Quartile Range 3-55— 4.47 1 .20— Range of Scores Median

5.00 3.81

12

1 4 11 18 31 8 1 2 1

1 2 14 12 7

76

38

2

2 6 7 8 7 2 1

2 3 4 6

6

16 42 68

107 1

31

16 5 4

33

College Average Mean Standard Deviation Quartile Range

16

300

3*50

.61 3*35— 3.87

Range of Scores

Median Coefficient of Correlation . 4 8 5 Probable Error + .026

1 .00-4.70 3.47

86 mean in this subject ranged from 3*30 to 4.32 and college marks from 2.90 to 4.10.

For both extremes of the sigma

college marks registered about .40 below those for the secondary school. A slight difference, however, was noted in the re­ lationship of the median to the mean.

For the total average

it was approximately the same but in the case of English, the median fell approximately .10 below the mean.

The

discrepancy, if it existed at all, was very slight.

A

second lack of agreement was seen in the ranges for the two measures.

Although both began at 1.2, high school English

continued up to 5 *0 , whereas, the highest college average was 4.7.

Although the matter of .3 was small, the fact

was that there was sixteen cases in which the English score oh the secondary level was 5 .0 , while the corresponding college mark was 2.6 to 4.7*

The coefficient of .48 +

.026 found between the two means was significant and of medium value.

It surpassed that between college average

and intelligence quotient, which was .45 + •05 > but was probably not as high as that between the high school aver­ age and marks on the higher level, although the probable errors of the two coefficients may have caused some over­ lapping on other samplings. High school language and college average.

A similar

87 attempt was made to find the relationship between high school language marks and college success.

The mean for

this subject was shown in Table XV to be 3*53* or approxi­ mately the same as the college mean.

The larger standard

deviation of .65 * however, caused 68 per cent of the cases to?.■range from 2.89 to 4.19* instead of 4.10.

The high

school median also rose above the mean nearly .45 in con­ trast to the median for the other scale, which was slightly below the mean. The coefficient of correlation was almost identical with that for English.

Hence, the same conclusions were

drawn concerning i t . High school mathematics and college average.

Table

XVI shows the relationship found to exist between secondary mathematics and college success.

This was the only subject

in which the coefficient, namely .57 + -038, was higher than that for the high school average in general.

At the

same time, the mean for mathematics was above that for any subject, and hence the decline to the college was steeper than that for the others.

average

However, the fact

that the standard deviations were quite close and that the medians for both stood in approximately the same rela­ tionship to the means accounted in part for the fact that the students who rated low in high school mathematics stood

88 TABLE XV RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND GENERAL COLLEGE AVERAGE High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5-0 average Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 College average 5.0— 5-3 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3 .8 — 4.1 3.4— 3»7 3.0— 3-3 2 .6 — 2.9 2.2— 2.5 1.8— 2.1 1.4— 1.7 1 .0— 1.3 Total

1 2

1 2

2 1

2 1

1

1

8

3 3 2 3

2 1 4 2 3 1

l 2

1

17

15

2 2

1 5 1

7 11 24 27 14 5 6 1 1 2 2 1

60

47

14 13 27 8 1 1

3

2

4

4

5

9 10

4 4

20 8

0 6 20 42 68 98 35 17 5 4 5

3

1

2

27

15

2

1

71

39

High School Average College Average Mean Mean 3-53 Standard Deviation Standard Deviation .65 Quartile Range Quartile Range 3-40 — 4.20 Range of Scores Range of Scores 1.05.00 Median Median 3*97 Coefficient of Correlation .49 Probable Error + .05

300

3.30 .61

3 .08-3.89

1.00- 4.80 3.27

89 TABLE XVI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS AND GENERAL COLLEGE AVERAGE High School 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3-0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 average Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3-3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 College average 5.0— 5*3 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3 -8 — 4.1 3.4— 3-7 3.0— 3.3 2.6— 2.9 2 .2— 2 .5 1 .8 — 2.1 1.4— 1.7 1.0— 1.3 Total

1 1 1 1

1 2

5

2 8

6 1 1

1

1

1

4

5.00 3.86

17

12 28 9

4 1 7

1 1

High School Average Mean 3-97 Standard Deviation .64 Quartile Range 3.47— 4.20 1 .00— Range of Scores Median

3

16

1 2 2

64

2

1 2

3

15

12 31 8 1 2 1

60

18 20 6

1 2 10 8 6

1 1 7

3 5 5

3

8

13 46 64

5

1

106

2

34 17 5 4 5

4

1 1

1

67

29

19

22

College Average Mean 3.50 Standard Deviation.60 1 .00— Quartile Range 4.70 Range of Scores 3.13 —

Median Coefficient of Correlation .57 Probable Error + .038

0 6

3.88

3.47

300

90 a slightly greater chance of falling low on the college average than did the poor students in other subjects.

A

difference of .40 to .50 point was noted between high school mathematics and college average.

One standard deviation

below the mean fell to 2.90 and 3«33> while one standard deviation above rose to 4.6l and 4.10.

However, the differ­

ential was somewhat smaller at the twenty- fifth and seventyfifth percentiles. High school social studies and college average.

The

lowest coefficient of correlation in these comparisons was that between high school social studies and the college average.

As seen in Table XVII, although the means were

identical, social studies showed much greater dispersion in its standard deviation of .73 as contrasted with .60 for the college average.

The limit of the cases one sigma be­

low the mean was below that for the college average and the upper limit of the one sigma range was above that for the same average.

However, the coefficient of correlation

o'f .45 J^_.046, while not as great as that for the other subjects was the same as that between intelligence quotient and college average, so that even with its low rank as regards relative predictive value among high school sub­ jects, it was still probably as good a criterion as the intelligence rating.

Moreover, the probable error may have

caused it in some samplings to be equal or to exceed that

91 TABLE XVII RELATIONSHIP BETMEEN HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES AND GENERAL COLLEGE AVERAGE High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2. 2 2.6 3*0 3.4 3. 8 4.2 4. 6 5.0 average Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2. 5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4. 1 4.5 4. 9 5.3 College average 5.0— 5.4 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3 .8 — 4.1 3-4— 3-7 3.0— 3.3 2.6— 2.9 2.2— 2.5 1.8— 2.1 1,4— 1.7 1 .0 — 1.3 Total

2 1 1

1

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

4 1 1

4 13 23 6 5 1

1

1 1

3

10

51

1 3

12

8

8

27 9 2 3

9 10 3 2 1

9 6 2

2

23 31 9 3 l 1 l

59

83

4l

29

10

2

2 6

1 5

3 4 5 4 3

6

16 42

69 106 31

16 5 4 5

College Average High School Average Mean Mean 3.83 Standard Deviation Standard Deviation .73 Quartile Range Quartile Range 3-59-— 4.29 Range of Scores Range of Scores 1.20-— 5.00 Median Median 3-95 Coefficient of Correlation .,451 Probable Error + .046

19

300

3*39

.60 3*20- 3.88 1.00- -

4.80 3-48

92 for foreign language, high school average and science* High school science and college average.

Identical

correlations of *48 + .02 were found in comparing high school English and high school science with college success. Although the means in these two subjects were quite differ­ ent, the fact that the coefficients were the same showed that students earning high grades in English had about the same chances of meriting high grades in general college work as superior science students had. The standard deviation, as shown in Table XVIII,for the three measures were practically identical, although the high school science grades were consistently higher. Conclusions.

In comparing the predictive value of in­

dividual high school subjects, it was found that only mathe­ matics bore a closer relationship to college success than did the high school average. shown in Table XIX.

A summary of the findings is

The other subjects were approximately

equal as criteria, but all of them came close to or exceed­ ed the coefficients found between intelligence quotients and college success.

93 TABLE XVIII RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE GRADES AND GENERAL COLLEGE AVERAGE High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3. 4 3-8 4.2 4.6 5.0 average Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.9 3.3 3. 7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 College average 5.0— 5-3 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3 .8 — 4.1 3.4— 3.7 3.0— 3.3 2.6— 2.9 2.2— 2.5 1.8— 2.1 1.4— 1.7 1 .0— 1.3 Total

2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1

1

0

6

1 2 2 1

1 3 19

6

3

12

11

43 8 4

23 3 1 1

2 1

1

75

44 99

5

3 3

1 1

4 3

8

2

9 3 3 1 2

31

0 6 16 42 69

106 31

16 5 4 5 4

15

College Average Mean 3•29 Standard Deviation .64 Quartile Range 3.05— 3.43 Range of Scores 1 .00— 4.80 5.00 Median 3.68 3.33 Coefficient of Correlation . 4 8 Probable Error + .02

High School Average Mean 3.65 .62 Standard Deviation Quartile Range 3.23— 4.00 Range of Scores 1 .20 — Median

3 5 4 3

5

5 24 27 25 10 5

1 1

300

94 TABLE XIX SUMMARY OP COEFFICIENTS FOUND BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECTS AND COLLEGE AVERAGE

High school subject

Correlation with college average r

P.E.

English

.48

+ .026

Foreign Language

.49

+ .05

Mathematics

.57

+ -038

Social Studies

.45

+ .046

Science

.47

+ .02

95 III.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS ON HIGH SCHOOL AND ON COLLEGE LEVEL

High school English and college English.

In answering

the question as to whether it is possible to predict success in a major field from the high school transcript, compari­ sons were made between the two levels within the individual fields.

Table XX shows the relationship between secondary

and higher grade point averages in English.

The average Eng­

lish grade dropped from 3«Bl to 3*32 in the transition from high school to college.

Moreover, this change was not very

consistent, since the standard deviation for the secondary level was .59> while on the higher level it rose to .70. This seemed to point to the fact that under conditions of competition met In high school, the group who actually enter­ ed college were fairly homogeneous.

However, a more serious

challenge on the higher level differentiated more closely between superior and mediocre students.

This supposition

was not borne out, however, with regard to some of the other subjects as was seen later.

Nevertheless, the coefficient of

.56 + .026 showed that a positive correlation of some value did exist between the two measures. High school English and Cooperative English T e s t .

A

further attempt was made to evaluate college success by basing it upon an objective criterion.

Here again the small

96 TABLE XX

High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3*0 3*5 average 1.3 1-7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3*4 3*7 College average 5.0— 5.3 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3.8— 4.1 3-4— 3.7 3.0— 3.3 2 .6 — 2.9 2.2— 2.5 1.8— 2.1 1 .4 — 1.7 1 .0— 1.3 Total

1 1

1 1 0

0

1 2

High School Average 3.81 Mean Standard Deviation .59 Quartile Range Range of Scores Median

1 4 6 1

13

1

2 15 34 3 2 5

1

9 9 46 3 6 2 2 1

40

78

77

4

26 .

|*l* H 1 CO

DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES IN ENGLISH

3 3 2

16

4.2 4.6 5*0 — Total *.5 4.9 5*3

1 4 3 12 7 11

1 1 2 7 6 12

1 1 3 6 3

3 6 10 49

2

138

51 10 13 10 2 3

1

39

29

16

295

College Average 3*32 Mean Standard Deviation *70 4 Quartile Range

Range of Scores 1.80— 5.00 Median 3.85 Coefficient of Correlation .56 Probable Error + .026

1.00— 5*00

3.31

97 sampling was a drawback.

The relationship which was found

to exist between high school. English and scores on the Cooperative English Test administered two years after com­ pletion of the high school course is shown in Table XXI. The mean secondary English grade for these students was about the same as. that for the larger group; namely 3*79* The standard deviation, however, was somewhat smaller than that for the others.

A coefficient of .44 + .059 showed

that there was a relationship between the two factors, but that the coefficient was not as high as that for college English based upon the subjective grade.

At the same time

it was evident that the predictive value of the English mark carried over a longer period of at least within the same subject than did the high school average.

It was noted

earlier that the relationship between the high school average and the mean scores on the three Cooperative tests and on the General Culture Test alone was somewhat less definite. High school social studies and college social studies. Table X5CII shows that social studies carried the highest college mean.

At the same time this subject correlated

more closely on its two levels than did any other pair of measures in the study except foreign language.

The second­

ary mean for two hundred forty-six students was 3*84, which was significantly greater than that for any other

98 TABLE XXI DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH MARKS AND SCORES ON THE COOPERATIVE ENGLISH TEST High school 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 average Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 Test scores 94 — 100 87— 93 80-- 86 73— 79 66— 72 59— 65 52— 58 45— 51 38— 44 31— 37 24— 30 17— 23 10-- 16 * * * o— 9 Total

1 1

1 1

1

1

2 1

1

4

2 1

3

1 2 3 7 5

2 1 1

2 1 2

2 1 2 2

1

7

7 3 7

2

1 1

1

25

15

2

1 1

7

2

6 8

4

16

1 1

19 15 15

4

1

4

1 2 2

2 2

1

1

1

1

3

14

25

12

High School Average Test Scores Mean Mean 3.79 Standard Deviation Standard Deviation .58 Quartile Range Quartlie Range 3 *46— 4.90 1.00— Range of Scores Range of Scores 5.00 Median Median 3.86 Coefficient of Correlation .443 Probable Error + .059

100

2

62.84 18.90 52.0073.00 10.GO97. 00

62.10

-

-

99 TABLE XII DISTRIBUTION OP HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES IN SOCIAL STUDIES High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.8 4.2 4. 6 5.0 average Total 3.4 4.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.7 4.5 4. 9 5*3 College average 5-0— 5-3 4.6— 4 .9 4.2— 4 .5 3 .8 — 4.1 3-4— 3-7 3-0— 3-3 2 .6 — 2.9 2 .2— -2.5 1.8— 2.1 1 .4— 1.7 1.-0— 1.3

1

Total

2

1 1

1

1

1

1 2

1 2 2 2

4

4 4

6

16

12 28

10 6

19 3 4 1

2 7 4

4 1 1

2

7 4

2

1 1

1

1 2

3

5

High School Average 3-84 Mean .80 Standard Deviation Quartile Range 3*45- 4.37 1.10- -5.00 Range of Scores Median

1 1 2 17

1

1 7 7 3

4 1 2 4 4 5

4l

68

29

85 16

27

20

College Average 3-68 Mean Standard Deviation .78 3 .06- Quartile Range 3.85 1.00- Range of Scores

Median 3.92 Coefficient of Correlation .60 Probable Error + .03

16 38 46

10 2 7

1 41

8 4

14

1 2

8

1 1 7

3.00 3.36

246

100 subject.

Thus, while the mean dropped slightly, as was to

be expected in transferring to college, it still retained its relative superiority over language, science, and mathematics and at the same time rose above English, which on the college level ran a close second.

Thus, while the

college English score dropped, the social studies mean bore a close relationship with the same subject on the secondary level. The standard deviations on the secondary and college levels were approximately the same.

There was no signi-.

fleant difference between .80 for high school and .78 for college.

Thus, the amount of spread above and below

the mean for this group remained about the same in college as in high school.

While sixty-eight per cent of the stu­

dents ranged from 3..04 to 4.64 in high school the same portion were found to average from 2.90 to 4.46 in the higher institution.

These scores showed a consistent

drop of approximately .20. Even though the relationship of the scores on the two levels remained very close when viewed from the stand­ point of value, there was some difference in the measure of position, namely the median.

While the high school

median was 3 «92 , that for the college dropped almost .60 . However, when it was considered that the secondary median

101 was approximately .10 above the mean and the college about

.30 below the mean,there did not seem to be a great differ­ ence.

The Influence of eight very high college scores,

four of which on the high school level rated a high “C" may have been responsible for the slightly higher mean. Prom the above considerations it was not surprising to note a coefficient of .60 + .03*

Even considering the

probable error, in 50 per cent of the cases this relation­ ship would not be higher than .63* nor lower than .57• Thus, for this college at least, the conclusion seemed reasonable that it was safer to forecast college marks in social studies from high school social studies ratings than to predict college average from the same criterion. High school mathematics and college mathematics.

As

can be seen in Table XXIII, secondary and higher mathematics showed a correlation of .52 + .049, whereas theb between the intelligence quotient and college mathematics was .45 + .057*

The correlation between the two levels of the

same subject, therefore, was significant and of some value, even though the small number of cases would warrant caution in interpreting the results. The mean on the college level was smaller than that for any of the other subjects and significantly different from that for social studies although the difference was

102 TABLE XXIII DISTRIBUTION OP HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES IN MATHEMATICS High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 average Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 College average 5 .0— 5-3 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3 .8 — 4.1 3.4— 3-7 3.0— 3-3 2 .6 — 2.9 2.2— 2.5 1 .8 — 2.1 1.4— *1.7 1 .0— 1.3 Total

1 3

2

5

7

2 6

3

1

2

1

17

21

7 1

1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1

4

High School Average Mean 3*55 Standard Deviation .80 Quartile Range 3*52— 4.43 Range of Scores 4.35 Median

2

2 2

1 1 10

1

4

10

1 1 1

4

1

5

1

3

1

13

4 5

2 18 14 34

1

1 1

8 9

1 1 4 23

8

4

College Average Mean Standard Deviation Quartile Range Range of Scores

4.01 Median Coefficient of Correlation .52 Probable Error + .049

7

100

3.32 .84 3.36 — 4.15 3.64 3.74

103 very small.

At the same time, the standard deviation was

the same as that for language and social studies and larger than that for English and science.

Approximately

68 per cent of the college marks ranged from 2.48 to 4.16, whereas those for high school were found from 2.74 to 4.35* Thus, in both groups, marks fell from nD fl to ”B , ,! but the numerical value for college was lower, as might be expect­ ed.

While the mean dropped about .20 on the higher level,

the fact that the standard deviation was approximately the same for high school and college showed that students continued to fall approximately the same distance above and below the mean after transferring from the lower school. This rather consistent rise and fall probably accounts for the fairly high coefficient of .52 . High school science and college science.

Two hundred

forty-one students, as indicated in Table XXIV, were con­ sidered in comparing high school and college science.

The

mean on the college level was almost identical with that for language.

With regard to both subjects, the average

dropped from 3*60 to 3*30.

The standard deviation was small­

er than that for any other subject.

Hence, the 68 per cent

who in high school received marks from a high "D," 2.98 to a high "B,11 4.64, in college rated a medium “D 11 to a !IB .11

The loss of .30 was fairly consistent throughout

the group.

As was not true in the case of other subjects,

104 TABLE XXIV DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES IN SCIENCE H

4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.8 4.2 4. 6 5.0

rH

•1 •

1 CO

rH

Total

•1 •

College average 5.0— 5-3 4.6— 4.9 4.2— 4.5 3-8— 4.1 3.4 — 3.7 3.0— 3.3 2.6--2.9 2.2— 2.5 1.8— 2.1 1.4— 1.7 1 .0— 1.3

O

H

High school average

Total

7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.5 4. 9 5.3

1 1

1 1

1

0

8 1 4

1

1 2

3

17

1 1

2

1 4 7 29 6 4 3 1 1

1 8 10 11

56

33

2 l

3

1

1

7

2 8 4 6

2 1

18 18 40 2 1 1

1

3 1 1 3 l 2 1

8 1 14 43 40 100 10

13 3 4 3

1

90

22

5

College Average High School Average 3.66 Mean Mean Standard Deviation .68 Standard Deviation Quartile Range Quartile Range 3.27— 4.08 1.10— Range of Scores Range of Scores 5.00 Median Median 3.83 Coefficient of Correlation .54 Probable Error + .03

12

241

3.37

.69 3.01- 3.85 1.00-

5.00 3.42

-

105 the difference between the median and the mean increased but slightly on the college level.

Furthermore, very

little difference was found between the ranges of scores. The lowest high school mark was 1.28; for college it was 1.0.

The highest grade for both was 5.0.

Thus, there

was some lack of agreement among the higher scores in that, while the mean, practically all scores within one standard deviation above and below the mean, and the lowest marks fell approximately .30 , the highest scores maintained their 5«0 ascendency. The coefficient of correlation of .54 + *03 was somewhat higher than that of .43 + .043 found between in­ telligence and college science.

Thus, it was concluded

that the high school science grade was a better predictor of success in college science than was the intelligence quotient, and that secondary science was of about equal value with mathematics in forecasting future grades within the same subjects. High school foreign language and college foreign language.

The coefficient between high school language

and college language was the highest of those found for any pairs of variables with the exception of that between the intelligence quotient and the mean score on the Coopera­ tive tests.

On the other hand, the degree of relationship

106 between foreign language and the intelligence test ratings was the lowest.

Table XXV shows the correlation to be

.64 + .02. The mean average for high school language was 3-65, which was approximately .20 lower than that for English and social studies and 1 0 higher than that for mathematics. While these differences were significant in that the cri­ tical ratio showed a true difference to exist, their numeri­ cal value was negligible.

The college mean of 3»33 repre­

sented a lowering of .39 of a letter.

The same relation­

ship between high school and college was maintained in the scores one sigma above and below the mean since the sigmas .80 and .81 are identical.

Thus, while approximately 68

per cent of the group ranged from 2. 85 * a high "D,11 to 4.43, a mid nB , ,f the same number of students earned marks from 2.52 to 4.14 in college.

These grades were approxi­

mately .30 below the high school rating. Summary and Conclusions.

In order to determine the

value of high school marks in predicting college success, correlations were found between individual subjects and college average as well as between high school average and college success as judged by teachers* marks and by achieve­ ment on the Cooperative General Culture, Current Events and English Tests.

A further attempt to assign emphasis where

107 TABLE XXV DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES High school 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 averages Total 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 College average 5 .0— 5-3 4.6--4 .9 4.2— 4.5 3 .8 — 4.1 3.4— 3.7 3.0— 3.3 2 .6 — 2.9 2.2— 2.5 1.8— 2.1. 1.4— 1.7 1 .0 — 1.3 Total

1 1 1 1

1

18 2 1

23 1 1

1

6

1 4 1 2

5 2 2 1 5

4

High School Average Mean Standard Deviation Quartile Range

2 3 6

13

2

18 6

1 2

4 9 19

1 1

1

6 33

1 2

3

1

7

6 8

3 3 4

5

10

1

12

10 6 2

7 3

55 49 94 9 12 9 7 10

4

1 1

1

2

3

1

1 1

12

58

50

56

25

28

College Average Mean 3.65 .80 Standard Deviation Quart!le Range 3-31— 4.39 Range of Scores Range of Scores 1.20— 3-00 Median Median 3.79 Coefficient of Correlation .64 Probable Error + .02

18

271

3.33

.81 3.02-— 3.88 1.00-- -

5.00 3.32

108 it was most valid in the admissions program consisted in a study of the relationships between college and high school marks within the same subject.

Therefore, coefficients

of correlation were computed between each of the five fields as evaluated by marks on the secondary level and in the higher institution.

Finally, a comparison was made be­

tween high school English and the results of the Cooperative English Test as an objective criterion of college achieve­ ment . From Table XXVI it can be seen that the high school mean varied from 3*35 to 3*84 for the five subjects, where­ as the college means were consistently 3*30 with the excep­ tion of social studies.

The mathematics averages were lowest

on both levels, although the difference between the mathe­ matics mean and the average for the other fields of work on the college level was probably a chance one.

Social studies

was highest on both levels, whereas English dropped a half letter in college.

All other means were lowered approxi­

mately .30. The standard deviations varied from .62 to .84, but they were fairly consistent within the subject on the two levels.

English, however, was the exception.

The sigma

for the group in high school was .59; in college it rose to .70. The coefficient of correlation between high school

*

109 TABLE XXVICOMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES WITHIN FIVE FIELDS OF STUDY

Subject

Number of cases

Mean

Sigma Median

Quartile Range

r

P.E.

Language High School College

271

3-65 3-33

.80 .81

3.79 3.32

Science High School College

241

3.66 3-37

.68

.69

3.83 .3-42

Mathematics High School College

100

3-55 3-32

.80 .84

4.01 3.74

3.52— 4.43 •52 3.36— 4.15

+ .049

English High School College

300

3-81 3.32

•59 •70

3-85 3-31

3-22— 4.40 .56 2.60— 4.02

+. 026

3.84 3.68

.80 •78

3-92 3-36

3.45— 4.37 .60 3.06— 3.85

+ .03

Social Studies High School 246 College

3.31— 4.39 .64 3.02— 3.88

+ .02

3.27— 4.08 .54

+ .03

3 .OI— 3.85

110 average and college average was .53 + .04.

The highest

coefficient within the individual subjects was that for foreign languages,

.64+

.02.

The next highest was .60

+ .02 for social studies with .56 + .02 , .54 + .03 , .52 + .049 following for English, science and mathematics respectively.

All high school subjects for the groups

tested were better predictors of college success within the subjects than of the college average as a whole with the exception of mathematics, which correlated .52 + .049 with college mathematics and .57 + .038 with the general average.

The coefficients between high school English and

results of the Cooperative English Test were not as satis­ factory as were the other measures.

By way of summary it

was concluded that while foreign languages and social studies were best and the other fields approximately equal, all subjects showed a higher relationship to college success than did the intelligence quotient.

CHAPTER V

RELATIVE VALUE OF HIGH SCHOOL MARKS TRANSFERRED FROM VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS This chapter deals with the comparisons made to de­ termine whether the high school marks transferred from one institution were of equal value with those sent from others.

Using the grade point weighting "A" equals 3 >

nB fl equals 2 , "C” equals 1 , 11D n equals 0 and "F” equals minus 1, the high school averages for subjects taken during the first semester of college and the average marks for that period in the higher institution were translated into numerical values.

The difference between the two was

found and expressed as a plus or minus differential.

The

mean differential for the individual high school was then computed and compared with that for the entire group and with other groupings according to types of schools.

In

order to limit the conclusions to data accumulated during a definite period of time, differentials and means were used only for those entering as freshmen between the years 19^8 and 1 9 50 .

As a further means of comparison, the

number and per cent of students from each high school considered who earned marks of ffB , ff ,fC , ff "D," and "Fh were noted.

Although fifty-four high schools, twenty-

112 eight public and twenty-six private or parochial, sent students to the college, because of the difficulty in­ volved in getting a sufficient sampling, only five schools 4 were considered for direct comparison. Even then, the small number of students from each was a drawback.

Because

of the fact that in many cases the public schools con­ tributed five or fewer students each, the institutions selected were private or parochial. Table XXVII shows that the differentials for the entire group of three hundred fifty-six students entering the college extended from -3.00 to +1.49* which meant that in the case of at least one student the average college first semester mark was three points below the average high school mark in the same subjects, and that in the case of at least one other student the college average rose 1.49 points above that for the high school.

The mean

differential of the group was minus .35 or .35 points below high school marks.

A standard deviation of .48

indicated that over two thirds of the cases showed differ­ entials ranging from minus

.83 to plus .13 *

According to Table XXVIII, High School A, which sent seventy-one students, was seen to have a mean differ­ ence of minus .45 together with a range of minus 2.10 to plus 1.19*

This mean seemed to be approximately .10

points below the average for the group.

However, the

113 TABLE XXVII. MEAN DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE AVERAGES FOR ALL STUDENTS Differential

Number of cases

Plus Plus 1.20— 1.49 .90— 1.19 .60-- .89 .30— .59 .00-- .29 Minus Minus .30-- .01 .60-- .31 .90— .61 1.20-- .91 1.50— 1.21 1.80— 1.51 2 .10— 1.81 2.40— 2.11 2.71 — 2.41 3.00— 2.71

Mean

Standard deviation

3

2

81 74 43 15 8 6 1

0 1 Total

355



-.35 65

CO

3 17 37

114 TABLE XXVIII COMPARISON OF MEAN DIFFERENTIALS FROM FIVE SCHOOLS WITH THOSE FOR STUDENTS FROM ALL SCHOOLS Mean

School

Sigma

School B

o

00

CO •

-.35

71

Minus Plus

50

.88—

.08

Minus Plus

.84—

Minus Minus

.60— .04

25

Minus Plus

.81 —

28

.05

Minus Plus

.83— .13

00

Entire Group

CVJ •

School E

CO •

-.32

1

School D

.46

Minus 1 .01— Plus .11

00

-.38

Number of cases

00

School C



.56



-.45 i

School A

Range one S.D. above and below mean

30

.08

355

115 larger standard deviation of .56 allowed a standard de­ viation range above and below the mean of minus 1.01 to plus .11.

As a consequence, it was necessary to consider

that on a repeated number of trials considerable overlapping between the two means would occur.

Furthermore, when the

means, sigmas and number of cases involved were made factors in determining the critical ratio, no significant differ­ ence between the two means was found to exist.

Even had

such a significance been present, the difference between 7 minus

.35 and minus

.45 was not great.

A closer coincidence of means was found in consider­ ing School B.

The differentials for the fifty students

representing the institution ranged from minus 1.80 to plus 1.49.

The mean of minus

a range of from minus

.40 with sigma .48 allowed

.88 to plus .08 for approximately

68 per cent of the cases.

When comparing it with the mean

for the whole group, no significant difference was evident. The mean of minus

.38 for thirty students of School

C was almost identical with that for all schools.

However,

the range from minus 1.20 to plus .59 was somewhat smaller than those for the other schools mentioned above or for all the students as a group.

Thus, while the whole groups

represented a range of 4.49 points, School A and B 3«29 each, School C represented a range of but 1.29 points. The mean difference for the fourth institution,

116 School D, was seemingly smaller than that found for any other.

However, when the differences between It and the

means of the other measures were divided by the respective errofrs of the means, the resulting critical ratios showed no significant difference between it an any other.

The

standard deviation of .28 was the smallest found and the only one which placed the entire 68.35 per cent of the cases within the negative section of the distribution.

On

the other hand, the mean difference between high school and college marks was not greater than that for the other institutions.

Hence, any differences which appeared at

first sight of necessity had to be disregarded. School E, with twenty-eight cases, ranged from minus •90 to plus .29 or 1.19 points.

This small range for

Schools D and E may have been accounted for in part by number of cases considered.

the

However, such a conclusion

might not have been justified because of the fact that School C with but thirty students had a range identical with that for School B.

The mean difference for School E

was minus .38 and the standard deviation .43*

Thus

approximately two thirds of the scores varied from minus

.81 to plus .05 From the while there was

above considerations it was concluded that, a seeming difference between the mean

differentials of some of the schools and that for the

117 whole group, actually there was no significant.difference between the mean for any school and that for all students, nor even between the means of the individual schools themselves. When all scores for the five institutions were pooled and computed a much smaller negative mean was found.

Table XXIX shows that the scores ranged from minus

2.10 to plus 1.49 or 3.59 points. minus

The computed mean was

.22 and the sigma .50 , which gave a range one sigma

above and below the mean of minus hundred four students.

.72 to plus

.28 for two

Surprising though the small differ­

ence appeared, it was understandable in that the mean was not the average of the other means, but was found by combining all students in the five schools as one group. When the differences between the means for the individual schools and that for the combined number from the five schools were considered, a critical ratio of 3-33 approach­ ing significance was found in the case of School A, but with the remainder, no such significance was noted. An even greater variation than that between the means for the whole group and that for the two hundred four students was found when the averages were computed using other groupings.

Differentials for all students

from private schools in Los Angeles, including Schools A and B, ranged from minus 2.10 to plus 1.49 and showed a

118 TABLE XXIX MEAN DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE AVERAGES COMPUTED THROUGH THE USE OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT GROUPINGS Type of group

Mean

Sigma

Schools A,B,C,D,E

-.22

.50

Minus •72— Plus .28

204

Private in City

-*45

•50

Minus •95— Plus .05

173

Private outside City-.70

.42

Minus 1.22— Minus .28

181

Range one S.D. above and below mean

Number of cases

119 mean of minus .45 with a sigma of .50 .

However, when

private schools out of the city were placed together the average differential increased to minus deviation of .42.

.70 with a standard

Since so few representatives were

sent from any one public school and since so many locali­ ties were represented, it was not considered justifiable to combine marks from these institutions.

Moreover the

fact that when private schools outside the city were placed together, the mean varied greatly from those found with other combinations points to the conclusion that because of variations in marking systems, curricula and require­ ments over large sections of the country from which these students come any decisions reached through computation of this mean were probably untenable. From the comparison of high school and college marks described above, it was concluded that while average differentials between high school and college marks seem­ ed to vary from school to school, no statistical differ­ ence could be found between them.

Hence, although the

secondary grades for one individual student may not be as valid as those for another, it must be conceded that from a consideration of the mean differentials at least, the marks of each of the five schools listed above were statistically of approximately equal value. In order further to determine the predictive value

120 of grades transferred from various high schools, an in­ vestigation was made of the number and percentage of stu­ dents from each who succeeded in college. It can be noted from Table XX, that of the two hundred four students who entered from the five schools thirty-two or 15*6 per cent received flB n marks, one hundred twenty-five, or 61.3 per cent, earned ,,C ,s;11 fortyfive, or 22.2 per cent, were graded ”D" and two, or .9 per cent, failed.

School A sent seventy-one students, twelve

of whom earned "B,11 thirty-one flC," twenty-* seven "D," and one mF . ”

These averages represented respectively 17>

37 and 1 per cent of the total number entering from that institution. Of the fifty students reporting from School B, seven or 14 per cent earned " B ’s,11 thirty-one or 62 per cent a "C," eleven of 22 per cent ”D ” and one or 2 per cent "F." Thus, while School A had a slightly larger percentage of flB fl marks, School B had fewer "D's" and both registered one failure e ach. School C',s thirty cases represented four “B's" or 12 per cent, twenty-one "C's” or 71 pen cent, five MD ls tl or 17 per cent and no failures.

Students from this insti­

tution hovered closer to the nC M average than did those from the other two high schools. were reported for School D.

No uD n or MF n grades

Three received nB fsn and

121 TABLE XXX NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO SUCCEEDED IN COLLEGE FROM THE FIVE SCHOOLS UNDER CONSIDERATION School

Marks

Number of cases

B

C

D

F

12 17

31 45

27 37

1 1

71

School B Number Percentage

7 14

31

11 22

1 2

50

62

School C Number Percentage

4 12

21 71

5 17

0 0

30

School D Number Percentage

3 14

22 86

0 0

0 0

25

School E Number Percentage

6 21

20 71

2 8

0 0

28

School A Number Percentage to nearest per cent

122 twenty-two "D's,11 which represented respectively 14 and 86 per cent of those entering.

Percentages from Schools

C and E were quite similar, although the latter had some advantage in that while it matched the former's 71 per cent "C's,” it had 21 per cent "B's” in place of 12 and 7 per cent "D's" as against 17Thus it was seen that students from Schools B and E earned a higher percentage of “B's" than did all stu­ dents as a whole, while those from Schools A, C, and D merited fewer.

On the other hand, School A registered

by far the greatest percentage of nD'sM and all others fell below the average for the larger group.

By a process

of elimination, School D had the largest percentage of "C" grades, followed by Schools C and E, B and A. Schoola A and B were seen to have one failure each.

Only Thus,

while conclusions of necessity had to be drawn with cau­ tion because of the difference in the numbers involved and the many factors entering into college success, it was concluded that students from Schools D and E prob­ ably did slightly better work in college than those from the other institutions.

On the other hand, however, such

calculations did not take into consideration the secondary schools' evaluation of the students, but only their later success.

No significant difference was found between the

mean differentials for these schools.

123 Summary and Conclusions.

In order to determine

whether high school marks transferred from one Institution were of equal value with those from others in predicting college success, a comparison was made of the mean differ­ ences between high school marks and first semester college marks in the same subjects.

For the five schools which

sent the greatest number of students an analysis was made by viewing the mean differential for each school in the light of the average differential of all students. Similar bases for comparison were the means for all private schools within Los Angeles, private schools outside the city and all students from the five schools considered as a g roup. A second method of evaluation consisted in computing the percentage of students from each institution who earned nB , n "C,H 11D , M and "F*1 marks.

A comparison was made be­

tween the number in each category for individual schools and the number receiving that mark in the entire group. From the results of such procedures the following con­ clusions were drawn. 1.

Wide variations were found in the mean differ­

ential computed for all students as a whole, for students from private schools in Los Angeles, from those outside the city, and from the five schools especially considered. Hence, It was conceded that comparisons must be drawn with

124 great prudence since a change in the number and arrange­ ment of the group entailed a significant change in the mean. 2.

No significant difference was found between the

predictive value of marks transferred from any of the five schools, although poor evaluation may have been made in individual cases.

3.

Students from Schools D and E to a small

degree were more successful than those from the other schools in that they received fewer "F," nD ,11 and nC n marks and more "B's” than those from the other institutions. However, in this no notice was taken of the evaluation given to the students by the sending high schools.

CHAPTER VI

PERCENTAGE OP STUDENTS FROM VARIOUS INTELLIGENCE LEVELS MHO SUCCEED IN COLLEGE The purpose* of the investigation described in this chapter was to determine what percentage of students from each of several intellectual levels succeeded in college. Records of three hundred thirty-nine students were used in dividing the group into sections representing intelligence quotients of 90 to 94, 95 to 9 9 > 100 to 104, 105 to 109> 110 to 114, 115 to 119, 120 to 124, 125 to 129. 130 to 134, 135 to 139 9 and 140 to 144.

The hunber and per cent of

students in each group earning marks of r’B , ,f "C," ”D, ” and "F” respectively were then computed.

In reaching con­

clusions, weight was given to the consideration that studies, as was noted earlier, show that the Otis test does not differentiate sufficiently on the higher levels and that the intelligence quotient on the test is approximately seven points lower than that arrived at using other tests. As seen in Table XXXI, twelve students average fail­ ing marks.

While two were found to be at the lower end

of the intelligence range— 90 to 99— two represented levels from 115 to 124 and the remaining eight showed intelli­ gence quotients of 105 to 114.

It was noteworthy,

126 TABLE XXXI DISTRIBUTION OF GRADES WITH REFERENCE TO LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE

90 I.Q. level — 94

95 . 100

105

110

115

120

99

104

109

114

119

124

125 130 129

134

135

140

139 144

Mark 5

1

1

1.7 1.5

•3

•3

8

2

1

8

2 2.7

2.7

.3

11

6

0

1

1

0

4.4

3.2

1.7

0

.3

.3

0

5

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1.5

.9

.3

.3

0

0

0

0

37

92

74

51

45

13

14

4

2

3-7 4.5

.9

.6

N

0

0

1

6

9

4

11

%

0

0

.3

1.7

2.6

1.1

3-2

N

1

3

22

6l

47

35

27

%

•3

•9

6.5

18

14 10.3

N

1

1

14

20

15

%

.3

•3

3-9

6

N

1

1

0

%

.3

.3

3

5

6

B 7

C

D

F N Total %

.9 1.5 10.7

27.2 2L.9 14.9 13.2

Note: This table should be read as follows: * One student with an i ntelli g e n c e quotient rating of 100 to 104 received a mark of "B." This represented .3 per cent of the entire group of students.

127 however, that no failures were found in the uppermost section of the distribution; namely, from 125 to 144.

Thus,

it was concluded that although students with the greatest mental ability as demonstrated by the Otis test did not fail, below I.Q. 124 a small percentage of failures were to be noted. A consideration of those who received "D” marks showed that the highest percentages of such grades were found among the same 105 to 114 group.

However, this was

not entirely surprising since this level also included the greatest number of cases.

Above this level the number de­

creased quickly, so that none were found among those regis­ tering I . Q . fs from 125 to 129 and from 140 to 144 with but .3 per cent each for the 130 to 134 and 135 to 139 groups.

Below the modal level the percentage also dropped

from 6 per cent to 3-9 and .3 per cent as the numbers approached the lower extremes.

Actually, then, other

factors besides intelligence must have accounted for the low average of some of these students, since a substantial number on the 115 to 119 and 130 to 139 levels received unsatisfactory grades. "C" marks were scattered throughout the entire group.

The highest percentages were found on the 105 to

109 and 110 to 114 levels, as might be expected.

The 90

to 99 level showed fewer ,,c ls M than the other groups.

The

128 same held true on the upper extremes, especially for those rated 135 to 144, which indicated that with regard to l!C n marks intelligence differentiated more closely between success and failure than it did on the lower levels.

Hence,

students of low ability received fewer ,!C !slf than ,?D !s,f and "F's” while students in the highest brackets held more flC fs ff than nD !s !t and "F's.11

The fact that they received

fewer wB !s ” than nG !s ri indicated that the grading was fairly strict and that presumably only the better students on these upper levels received the preferred grade. "B" grades showed a definite preference for higher ability groups. such a mark.

Only one student below I.Q. 105 received

However, the. number of f,B !sft did not in­

crease consistently throughout the higher levels.

Of the

six students rated 135 to 145 > only two received !,B f! grades. Thus it was concluded that college marks correspond­ ed more closely with intelligence for those who earned ”B fs ” and " C ’s” than for those who received !tD !s,f and ”F 1s .11

Furthermore, it was seen that intelligence ratings

could not be construed as predictors of success in the case of the individual student, since 11D *s 11 and

were

found alike on the lowest and on the highest levels.

How­

ever, the lack of agreement was not carried beyond a certain point in that no f,B !s ,! were registered for the two lowest

129 groups and no nP fs" for the highest. In considering the ability levels separately as shown in Table XXXII, three students were found ranging between Otis I.Q. 90 to 94.

Of these three one received

a ”C," one a f,D, M and the other an MF !I average.

Thus,

it seemed that the chances for college success were small for students of this intelligence level, particularly be­ cause of the fact that only three were enrolled in the college, and that of these three only one attained a "C” rating. Of the five students who ranged from I.Q. 95 to 99, two earned an "F 11 average, two merited a "D ,11 and the remaining three a "C.”

The prospects of success for this

group were somewhat brighter than those for the former, but the outcome was still too doubtful to be relied upon. The I.Q. 100 to 104 level of ability showed a total of 2.7 per cent ,fB , !l 59*3 per cent "C," and 48 per cent "D."

Although no "F 11 averages were noted among

these students, the fact that such a large percentage received marks of IfD ,! Indicated that the level was not a safe one from which to enter higher institutions unless both student and college were willing to risk low marks. With regard to the 105 to 109 group, 5*3 per cent of the ninety-two students received grades of "F," where­ as 6.5 per cent merited l!B . ,!

On the other hand 66.3 per

130 TABLE XXXII PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITHIN EACH LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE RECEIVING MARKS OF "B," "C," "D,” AND nF" Intelligence group

Number of cases #•

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

— 9^ — 99 — 104 — 109 — 114 — 119 --124 — 129 --134 — 139 — 144

3 5 37 92 74 51 45 13 14 4 2

Marks B %

D %

C %

0 0 2.7 6.5 12.1 8.0 24.4 46.1 35.7

63.9 57.1

25.0 50.0

50.0 50.0

33.3 60.0 59.3 66.3 63.5 68.6

60.0

33.3 20.0 48.0 21.7 20.2 21.5 13.3 0 7.2

25.0 0

F % 33.3 20.0 0 5.5 4.2 1.9 2.3 0 0 0 0

Note: This table should be read as follows: of the three students with an intelligence quotient rating of 90 to 94 one or 33 •3 per cent earned a mark of r,C .11

131 cent were represented as ,fC M students and 21.7 per cent as "D.11

On this intellectual level, then, the average

and modal mark was f,C . fl

Since such a large majority-

attained this level of college success, it seemed justi­ fiable to state that this was probably the lowest intelli­ gence quotient rating upon which students might be admit­ ted with a sufficient degree of safety.

The intelligence

level was about the same as that required by most colleges, if the low Otis I.Q. be considered.

On the other hand, it

was noted that while there were few actual failures, over one fourth of the students received grades of "D" and "F." Whether 75 per cent success could be understood as satis­ factory was left as a matter to be decided as a point of school policy. Students from the 110 to 114 groups represented approximately the same number of "D's” as did the group immediately preceding, slightly fewer f,F 1s 11 and "C's” and a larger number of riB fs."

Thus, while the failures

and " D ’s 11 did not drop noticeably, the percentage of " B ’s" had almost doubled.

This accounted for the fact

that there were a total of 5 per cent fewer "O's” and UF *s .11 ’ A slight progression toward:more universal success was noted on the level. Fifty-one cases from 115 to 119 I*Q. showed failures reduced to slightly less than 2 per cent.

On the other

132 "B11 marks also dropped over 4 per cent, while "C's" rose from 63-5 and 66*3 to 68.6 per cent.

Furthermore,

“D*s11

still registered the same as that for the 105 to 109 group and slightly more than the 110 to 114.

This con­

sistent recurrence of "D11 marks for one out of every five students seemed to indicate that even though scholastic ability was accountable to some extent for college success, as witnessed by the progressive decrease of “P ' s 11 in favor of the higher marks, still there were other factors besides mental capacity of the type measures by the test which were at least partly responsible for the failure of these students, especially when it was considered that a considerable number fell below the average over a spread of three levels. The next group, those ranging from 120 to 124 dis­ played a wide variety of marks.

“F 11 grades increased very

slightly over the preceding level, but on the other hand "B11 marks increased threefold and "F's" fell 8 per cent. As a consequence of the sudden upsurge, there were about 8 per cent fewer ”C 1s ."* The picture seemed to indicate that the 84.4 per cent who received "B11 and flC n marks provided Justification for stating that students of this calibre should succeed in college.

The small number of

unsatisfactory marks were to be expected here and there in most samplings.

133 From the thirteen students with ratings from 125 to 129 no "D” or mF*‘ grades were reported.

Moreover, they

represented an increase of 17*7 per cent in mB" marks over the previous level.

Even with such a large proportion of

recommended grades, the number of “C's11 was maintained at

63.9 per cent. The next group, representing fourteen cases showed a decrease over that noted above.

nB 1s11 dropped about

10 per cent and '‘C ’s11 6 per cent.

Furthermore 7*2 per

cent of "D's" were noted, although there were no "F's” listed.

The divergence from the rather consistent up­

ward trend should not have been surprising since, due to individual differences even greater fluctuations would probably be noted somewhere on the scale on an indefinite number of samplings. The two top levels gave a further example of such divergence, accentuated this time by the very small number of cases.

Of the four students rated 135 to 139 »

two earned "C,11 one "B," and one "D.11

One of those

classified as 140 or above received "B" and one tfC .11

It

was interesting to note, even though it was necessary to take it only for what it was worth, that of the six stu­ dents ranging 135 to 144, only two merited "B" grades. Since the purpose of the chapter was to determine the relative prospects of college success possessed by

13^ each ability group, and since success has commonly been considered a nC" mark, an attempt was made to classify students according to ability and degree of success judged by this criterion.

Table XXXIII, shows that on the

90 to 9^ level, 33 1/3 per* cent were successful and 66 2/3 per cent were not, whereas among those rated 95 to 9 9 > 60 per cent were successful and 40 per cent were not.

While

these scores seemed to show an increased in average in pro­ portion to the increase in the intelligence rating, the fact that the I.Q.

fluctuates on an average as much as

ten points and the addition consideration that only eight students were under observation warned that any conclusions drawn from such data would probably be neither reliable not valid. The next two groups showed that of those ranked as 100 to 104, 62

per cent succeeded and 3^*8 per cent failed,

and of the 105

to 109 level 72.8 succeeded and 27*2 did

not.

These percentages showed a gradual increase in

the number successful with each increase in mental rating. In this case ninety students were considered and since the results fitted well as a continuation of those noted for the two lower groups, some weight was given to that data also. Intelligence quotients from 110 to 119 continued to display a rise directly proportional to the ratings from

135

TABLE XXXIII PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS FROM EACH LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL IN COLLEGE WORK Intelligence level 90 — 94 95 — 99 100 — 104 105 — 109 110 — 114 115 — 119 120 --124 125 --129 130 — 134 135 — 140 140 — 144

Successful Number Percentage

1

33.3

3 23 67

60.0 62.0 72.8

Unsuccessful Number Percentage

2 2

66.6

14 25

38.0 27.2

40.0

56

75.6

39 38 13 13 3

76.6

18 12

24.4 23-4

84.4

7

100.0

0 1 0 0

15.6 0

2

93.8

100.0 100.0

7.2

0 0

136 the intelligence tests.

Thus, of the fifty-six students in

the 110 to 114 group, 76.6 and 23*4 for those listed as 115 to 119. From I.Q. 120 upwards the percentage of successes increased rapidly with the exception of the 135 to 139 category in which one case out of thirteen caused a drop of 7.2 per cent.

Thus, the percentage of successful stu­

dents for 120 to 144 rose steadily, listing by levels 84 per cent, 100 per cent, 93*8 per cent and 100 per cent respectively.

On the other hand, the record of failures

for the same groups was 15*6 per cent 0 per cent, 7*2 per cent and 0 per cent. While a f,C M average was taken to represent college success, a more comprehensive view of so-called success­ ful students was represented by a comparison of the number and per cent of those receiving superior of "B" marks on each level*

The results are shown in Table XXXIV.

No

recommended grades were received on the two lowest levels. Out of the thirty-seven in the I.Q. 100 to 104 division, only one or 2.7 per* cent received a "BH grade.

With the

next group, that from 104 to 109, six out of ninety-two or 6.5 per cent succeeded in earning a "B.”

I.Q. 110 to

114 rated nine out of seventy-four or 12.1 per cent, an increase of 6 per cent over the preceding.

A slight

decrease was noted on the next level in which only five

137 TABLE XXXIV PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS FROM EACH LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE EARNING MARKS OF "B11 Level of intelligence Number earning flB H Per cent earning "B" 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

— — — — — — — — — — —

94 99 104 109 114 119 124 129 134 139 144

0 0 1 6 9 4 11 6 5 1 1

0 0 2.7 6.5 12.1 8.0 24.4 46.1 35-7 25-0

25.0

Note: This chart should be read as follows: one student or 2.7 per cent of those in the intelligence quo­ tient level 100 to 104 earned a mark of nB . M

138 out of fifty-one maintained such an average.

This was also

the highest group In which one fourth of the students re­ ceived uD's.11

A sharp rise was noted for the 120 I.Q.

level, namely, from 8, per cent to 24.4 per cent, and this was followed by a similar leap to 4l.l per cent for those listed as I.Q. 125 to 129-

Thus, almost six times as many

at this level received "B's" as did those rated as 115 to 119-

A slight lowering in the percentage was noted for

the 130 to 135 group, with a final rise to 50 per cent on the highest level. From the foregoing considerations it can be seen that for the lower levels of intelligence ratings and college averages, the relationship between mental ability and performance, while close, did not eliminate chances of failure on the 105 to 119 levels, even though such failures rose no higher than 5 per cent of a group.

On the other

hand, it was noted that it was possible for students rang­ ing from Otis I.Q. of 90 to 104 to make "C11 grades, al­ though the chances of success on these levels were not great, especially in the first and second groups.

From

I.Q. 105 to 119 approximately 75 per cent succeeded; however, such a proportion still left one-fourth of the students with unsatisfactory grades.

Beyond 120 as com­

puted on the intelligence scale, the number of students succeeding was consistently high; the lowest percentage

139 recorded was about 85 per cent. When the number of students securing lfB M grades was considered, the same steady climb with a larger increase between 115 and 119 levels was found, with no high marks recorded for the two lowest groups and only one for the third.

However, because of the few cases at the upper

extremes of the intelligence quotient scale, in which one score could make a difference of 25 to 50 per cent, an irregular growth was noted representing percentages of 46.1, 35«7> 25, and 50 respectively for I.Q. levels begin­ ning at 125, 139> 135 9 and 140.

Hence it was concluded

that mental ability did play a large part in determining college records as a whole, but that in individual cases other factors not considered in the study influenced such marks greatly.

For this reason, it was probably safer

to conclude that for I.Q. groups above 124 success was well assured, and for those above 105 success would probably accompany three fourths of the class.

The same

120 to 144 levels.would probably also merit "B" rating in 25 to 50 per cent of the cases, if past performance could be considered sufficient evidence of future success. Summary and Conclusions.

In order to determine the

levels of mental ability from which success might be *

predicted with a certain degree of success, three hundred

thirty-nine students were divided into intelligence levels according to I.Q.

A comparison was then made with

college records to find what percentage from each level were successful.

Considerations were made as to the

number from the entire group earning specific grades on each level and the proportion of students within each I.Q. division earning marks of "B," tfC , ” nD,11 or lfF .11 From an analysis of the data, the following con­ clusions were reached: 1.

Intelligence quotient rating was not proof

against failure, although the number of failures in the higher mental brackets was small. 2.

Success in school stood in direct ratio to the

intellectual ability in general and for groups as a whole, but within each group exceptions, even widely differing ones, were found. 3.

Below Otis 105> from 20 to 48 per cent of the

students either failed or received MD !1 averages.

From

105 to 119 students could be safely admitted if both freshman and college were willing to take a one to four chance of unsatisfactory marks.

Within such groups per­

centages of failure ranged from 2 to 5*5 per cent.

For

the 120 to 124 group a smaller chance of unsuccessful work existed.

Above I.Q. 124 students could be admitted with

a negligible chance of earning unsatisfactory marks.

141 4.

Above 124 I.Q. students might safely be ex­

pected to earn superior grades.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I.

SUMMARY

Increased high school enrollments, due to develop­ ment within the secondary program and more comprehensive compulsory school laws have given rise to serious prob­ lems of articulation between high school and college. That higher institutions have not been in many cases ad­ mitting the most eligible students was evidenced in the fact that colleges as a whole have a high percentage of failures among freshmen.

Consequently, many liberal arts

colleges have found it necessary to re-evaluate their ad­ missions programs in order to determine upon which type of admission criteria most emphasis should be placed. Such was the case of the college concerned in this study. The purpose of the investigation was (l) to deter­ mine the relative importance of an intelligence test and of high school marks in a college admissions program; (2) to compare the prognostic value of high school marks transferred from several different institutions and (3) to determine the percentage of college students from various intelligence levels who maintain satisfactory grade point averages.

143 The problem was considered to be important because the quality of the student personnel to a great extent determines the type of college which exists.

Difficulties

encountered in setting up valid and reliable admissions requirements have arisen principally from the expanded secondary population, from differences between philosophy and practice among higher institutions as to the type of student admitted, and to changes within the secondary school curriculum.

High school graduating classes have

increased to such an extent that thousands of students who in an earlier period would not have considered higher educa­ tion are now seeking admission.

It has become, then the

task of the college to select from a most heterogeneous group those who will meet with success and profit most from the experience of advanced study. Entrance requirements which are adequate for one institution were not found to be so for another, since schools differ in the type of work pursued, the quality of pupil desired and the admission organization set up to carry on this work.

For this reason colleges have

differed greatly in their outlook as to the type of pupil admitted, some institutions demanding only the highest level of intelligence, others seeking all who can profit in any way from the instruction provided.

Furthermore,

many schools which profess to accept students of lower

144 ability have not been able to do so because in eliminating pupils to the point where the number can be assimilated with.fairly inadequate facilities, they have been forced to raise their requirement levels as an unavoidable ex­ pedient . Changes within the secondary program have given rise to innumerable problems of articulation.

From the early

type of requirements which consisted principally of high scholastic marks and successful completion of certain subject examinations, entrance criteria have developed through oral and written achievement tests, recommenda­ tions from accredited institutions, intelligence tests and other requirements to the present point at which institu­ tions generally require one or a combination of six cri­ teria.

The purpose of using any of these criteria has

been to predict college success from the data presented at entrance.

However, no perfect method of prediction has

been found since no flawless instrument has been developed. Even the best instruments have shown a low degree of value for such purposes. Part of the difficulty has come from the subjective character of college grades; another element has arisen from the multiple factors associated with achievement. Attempts to isolate contributing factors have not been markedly successful.

Hence, in general, educators have

1*5 had to be content with evaluating the more tangible aspects of admission programs. Early experimentors in the use of intelligence tests found that such measures differentiated between the very high and very low, but did not give much help on the inter­ mediate levels.

Later studies of correlations between mental

ability and college success averaged .44, according to S e g e l fs summary published in 1934.

Relationships between

high school and college marks were approximately ten points closer, the mean being .55*

By 1941, when Durflinger

collected data for the preceding decade, increased effi­ ciency in testing and changes in curriculum had raised the coefficient to .51*

Even at the present time, however,

transcripts seem to bear a closer relationship to success than does the intelligence test. The present investigation entailed a study of the transcripts of four hundred students entering a liberal arts college between the years 1945 and 1949*

Comparisons

were drawn, first of all, between intelligence and college marks.

This entailed computing the Pearson T,r M between the

intelligence quotient computed from the Otis Self Ad­ ministering Test of Mental Ability and the college average as a whole and in the individual subjects.

In order to

determine the relationship with an objective criterion of success a similar coefficient was found between it and

146 results of the psychological examination. Since the value of the measuring instrument was deemed of primary importance in determining mental ability, an investigation into the Gtis test was made to evaluate its validity and reliability.

This was done by

following up studies which had been carried on by educators using the test. As a second step, comparisons were made between high school averages in English, social studies, science, mathematics, and foreign languages and college average in the same subjects as a means of deciding whether intelli­ gence quotient or high school grade was the better predictor of the quality of college work.

High school averages in

the individual subjects were considered in relation to the college average to determine whether any one high school subject was of greater value than the high school average in forecasting college success.

Correlations were also

made between secondary and higher level averages within the individual subjects by way of finding whether success in a major field could be predicted at entrance.

Finally,

a coefficient of correlation was computed between the high school average and the results of the Cooperative tests. Since students entered the institution from fiftyfour different high schools, an attempt was made to distinguish the relative value of marks transferred from

147 various secondary schools.

This was carried out through

a comparison of the mean difference between high school and first semester college marks of students according to sending high school. The last part of the study consisted of an investiga­ tion of the number and percentage of students from several ability groups as found on the Otis test who succeeded in college.

Conclusions were drawn from a consideration of

the number in each group who attained !,B n and ”C M averages and from the percentages of UD ” and t!P ” averages within each group. The study was limited to one college.

In no case

were all four hundred students compared at one time.

Due

to the fact that the Cooperative tests were administered only to those who had completed two or more years of col­ lege work, that the differential computations for the sake of recency were limited to students entering during the past three years, and that in a few instances data was missing, samplings were always made from within the larger group, but each sampling did not include exactly the same cases as every other. No attempt was made to evaluate teachers1 marks dir­ ectly.

Furthermore, the Otis intelligence quotient was

used as a measure of mental ability without respect to the chronological or mental ages.

148 II.

CONCLUSIONS

From the data secured through the above mentioned computations, the following conclusions were drawn.

A

partial summary of the materials considered is contained in Table XXXV. 1.

The Otis Self Administering Test of Mental

ability was found to be as reliable and valid an instru­ ment as any other mental test.

Corrected for attenuation,

its correlation with the Stanford Revision of the Simon Binet test was .967 *

However, it was seen that it did

not differentiate sufficiently on the higher levels of ability and that on the whole the Otis intelligence quo­ tient was approximately seven points lower than that for the Stanford Binet. 2.

The coefficient of correlation between intelli­

gence and college average was .45 + .05 * which was signi­ ficant and of medium value.

High school science showed a

closer relationship than did the average, namely that of .51 +__.012.

Mathematics was identical with the average,

while English and social studies was lower. 3-

The mean scoes on the Cooperative General Culture,

Current Events and English Tests correlated to a higher degree with intelligence than did any other subject marks, the coefficient being .66 + .04.

Hence, it was concluded

that either the Cooperative examinations tested elements

149 TABLE XXXV SUMMARY'OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION FOUND IN THE STUDY r

Criteria

P.E.

Intelligence quotient

College average College English College science College mathematics College social studies Cooperative tests

.45 .40 •54 .45 .43 .66

+ .050 + .040 + .032 +". 057 +. 043 + .04l

College average

High High High High High

.48 .49 •57 .45 .47

+ .026 + .050 + .038 + .046 + .020

College English

High school English

.56

+ .026

College science

High school science

.54

+ .030

College mathematics High school mathematics

.52

+ .049

College language

High school language

.64

+ .020

College social studies

High school social studies

.60

+ .030

College average

High school average

.51

+ .012

school school school school school

English language mathematics social studies science

150 which were more closely related to those evaluated by the psychological examination, or that such instruments differentiated between high and low mental ability more closely than did college m a r k s . 4.

While the coefficients found between intelli­

gence and college achievement were not high, they did present evidence that they could well be made a partial basis for guidance in admitting students. 5.

The coefficient of correlation between high school

average and college average was closer than between the latter and intelligence.

Only high school mathematics

showed a closer relationship to the college average than did the high school average which registered an "r” of •53 + «04.

All subjects correlated more closely with the

college mean than did the intelligence quotient. 6.

For this college, the results obtained in in­

dividual college courses were more closely predicted by the evaluation of the corresponding high school course than was the entire college average.

Coefficients between high

school subjects and this mean ranged from .48 + .025 to

.57 + .038 but between individual high school and college subjects from .52 + .049 to .60 + .03•

7.

Relationships between high school marks and

Cooperative test results were low. 8.

No significant difference was found between marks

151 transferred from any of the five high schools considered in the study.

Students from two schools, however, attained

a slightly higher degree of success than those from the re­ maining institutions. 9.

Intelligence quotient rating was not proof against

failure, although the number of failures decreased consistent­ ly with the increase of mental ability.

Students with

Otis intelligence quotient ratings of 120 or above were considered safe acceptance risks, while those from 105 to 119 might be admitted provided there was willingness on the part of student and college to accept failure in a certain number of cases. Hence, by way of final conclusion, it was considered that both intelligence rating and high school transcript should be used as elements in admissions programs, but that greater emphasis should be placed upon the transcript.

Pre­

diction of success in individual subjects from the same subject grade in high school was safer than prediction of general achievement.

Finally, below Otis I.Q. 120 a

fairly large number of failures must be expected.

III.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

In continuing to evaluate the admissions program of this college, studies similar to the following might well

152 be made to supplement the conclusions drawn in the present instance. 1.

An investigation to determine the relative vali­

dity of teachers' marks within departments on the ..college level through comparisons with objective criteria. 2.

A study made to determine by means of multiple-

correlations the relative values of several combinations of criteria. 3.

A study to determine the relationship between

success and such factors as participation in co-curricular activities, amount of free time, and study habits at this particular college.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, W. A., and J. G. Saylor, Secondary Education. York: Rinehart Company, 1950.

New

Alteneder, L. E., "The Value of Intelligence Personality and Vocational Interest Tests in a Guidance Program,11 Journal of Educational Psychology, 40:449-52, September, 1940. Angell, James K., "The Predictive Value for College Achieve­ ment of Records in Arizona High Schools." Unpublished Master*s thesis, The University of Arizona, 1940 reported by Gray, R., "Bibliography of Research Studies in Educa­ tion," United States Office of Education Bulletin. Number 5* 1941. Ashmore, B., "High School Teachers1 Marks as Indicators of College Success," Journal of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, 21:219-30, January, 194b. Bettinger, G. E., "A Study of the Transcripts of Two Hundred Fifty College Entrants at University of California at Los Angeles with Special Reference to the Reliability of the Criteria upon Which the Recommendation Was M a d e . 1 Unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1928. Borow, H., "Current Problems in Prediction of College Per­ formance ," Journal of the American Association of Col­ legiate Registrars, 24:14-26, October, 1946. Bonser, H. R., Statistics of State School Systems. Biennial Survey of Education, 1916-1918> United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, Number 11, 1920. Boynton, P. L., Intelligence: Its Manifestations and Meas­ urement . New York: A. Appleton-Century, 1933* Bridges, J. Q., "Value of Intelligence Tests in Universities," School and Society, 15:295— 303> March, 18, 1922. Broom, M. E., "How Constant Is the I. Q. Yielded by the Otis Self Administering Test of Mental Ability?" Journal of Educational Research, 22:53-55* June, 1930.

154 Chamberlin, D., E. S. Chamberlin e t . a l ., Did They Succeed in College? New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942. Chaponis, A., nA Note on the Validity and Difficulty of Items in Form A of the Otis Self Administering Test of Mental Ability," Journal of Experimental Education, 5:246-48, March, 1937Durflinger, G. W . , "The Prediction of College Success," Journal of the Association of Collegiate Registrars, 19 :68-78, September, 1941. Eckert, R . , R. Marshall, When Youth Leave School. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1938.

New York:

Edgerton, H. A., and H. A. Toops, Academic Progress. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1929 reported by D. Segel, Prediction of Success in College. United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 15* 1934. Eucher, C. F., "Significance of North Carolina High School Marks in Terms of College Success," High School Journal, 26 :30-35> September, 1943* Ferguson, L. W., "Item Validities of the Otis Self Admin­ istering Tests of Mental Ability for College Population," Journal of Experimental Education, 9:229--32, 1941. Fine, B., Admission to American Colleges. and Brothers, 19~%E.

New York:

Harper

Fink, F. H., et. a l ., "Further Study in Prediction of College Achievement,” Unpublished Master*s thesis, University of Minnesota, 1934, reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies In Education,” United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 4, 1935Frank, R. W., "A Study of Probability of Prediction of Academ­ ic Success at the College of Puget Sound from Data Avail­ able at Entrance." Unpublished Master’s thesis, College of Puget Sound, 1934, reported by R. Gray, "Biblio­ graphy of Research Studies in Education, United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 4, 1936• Frasier, G. W. and J. D. Heilman, "Experiments in TeacherCollege Administration, III: Intelligence Tests," Educational Administration and Supervision, 14:268-78, April, 1928 .

155 Freeman, F. S., "Predicting Academic Survival," Journal of Educational Research, 23:113-23* February, 1931. Froehlich, Gustav, "Academic Prediction at the University of Wisconsin," Journal of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, 17:65-76, October, 1941. Garrett, W. S., "Ohio State Psychological Examination, an Instrument for Predicting Success in College," Occupations, 22:489-95* May, 1944. Gerberich, J. R . , "Factors Related to the College Achieve­ ment of High Aptitude Students Who Fail Expectation and Low Aptitude Students Who Exceed Expectations," Journal of Educational Psychology, 17:253-54, April, 1941. Good, C. F., Dictionary of Education. Hill Book Company, 19^5*

New York:

Greene, E. B., Measurement of Human Behavior. The Odyssey Press, 1941.

McGraw-

New York:

Hanchey, G. B., "The Value of High School Grades and Psy­ chological Examination Scores in Predicting First Term Freshman Grades." Unpublished Masterfs thesis, East Texas State Teachers1 College, 1937* reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Educa­ tion," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5* 1938. Henry, M. P., "Predicting Ability to Succeed in College E n g ­ lish." Unpublished Master’s thesis, Sam Houston State Teachers' College, 1937* reported by R. Gray, "Biblio­ graphy of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5* 1936• Hill, Robert A., "The Predictability of College Success Based on High School Records." Unpublished Master's thesis, Temple University, 1934, reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5* 1936.” Horsey, I. J., "A Study of the Predictive Value of Central, Eastern, McKinley, and Western High School Records in Relation to College Success at the University of Mary­ land." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Mary­ land, 1934, reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Re­ search Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5, 1936.

156 Hovland, C. I., E. P. Worderlic, "Critical Analysis of the Otis Higher Forms," Journal of Applied Psychology, 23:367-87, January, 1939* Kellogg, C. E., "Relative Value of Intelligence Tests and Matriculation Examinations as Means of Estimating Prob­ able Success in College," School and Society, 30:89396 , December 28, 1929* Kurtz, P. R., "A Study of the Entrance Requirements of State and Certain Private or Endowed Universities." U n ­ published Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1931* Landny, N. A., "Relative Predictive Value of Certain E n ­ trance Criteria." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of New York, 1936, reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 6 , 1937* Laird, D. A., e t . al'., "The Status of Mental Testing in College and University," School and Society, 18:59^600, November 17 , 1923* Lefever, D. Q., "The Prognostic Values of Certain Groupings of the Test Elements of the Thorndike Intelligence Exam­ ination for High School Graduates." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1927* Malott, J. I., "The Relation of Intelligence to Success in College Studies As Measured by a Standard Intelligence Test. Unpublished Master's thesis, River Falls Wis­ consin: River Falls State Teachers' College, 1936 reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 6, 1937* MacPhail, A. H., et a l ., "Psychological Tests at Brown University," School and Society, 10:27-30, July 5* 1919* Marshall, M. V., "Some Factors Which Influence Success in College Algebra," Mathematics Teacher, 32:172-7^* April,

1949.

.

Mellott, M. E., "The Relation of High School and College Marks As a Basis of Predicting College Success." Un­ published Master's thesis, Temple University, 1936, reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education, United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 6, 1937*

157 Mitchell, F. T., 'Why Freshmen Leave College," Journal of Higher Education, 13:95-100, February, 1942. Myers, B . , "Predictive Value of Alabama Freshman Testing Program." Unpublished Master's thesis, Peabody College, 1937# reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education, Number 5# 1938. Nettles, C. H., "Some Correlations between High School Grades, Thorndike Intelligence Examination Scores and College Success for University of Southern California Fresh­ men." Unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1925. "Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-Three College Sophomore Test­ ing Program, The," Educational Record, 14:522-71# October, 1933* O'Sullivan, J., "A Study of Differential Prediction on College Level." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of New York, 1935# reported by Ruth Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 6, 1937Perkins, E. A., "Predicting Success in Freshman English in the University of Colorado." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Colorado, 1935# reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies in Education," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 5# 193bPintner, R., Intelligence Testing, Methods and Results. New York: Henry Holt Company, 1931* Rich, M., "An Attempt to Predict Scholastic Success." U n ­ published Master's thesis, University of Kansas, 1938, reported by R. Gray, "Bibliography of Research Studies In Education," United States Office of Education! Bulletin# Number 5# 1939* Roberts, A., "Objective Measurement of Intelligence in Rela­ tion to High School and College Administration," Educa­ tional Administration and Supervision, 8:530-40, De c emb er, 19^2. Rogers, A. L., "Experimental Tests of Mathematical Ability and Their Prognostic Value." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Teachers' College, Columbia, 1918,

158 reported "Register of Doctoral Dissertations," Teachers1 College Bulletin, Twenty-eighth Series, Number W] February, 1937* Ross, C. C., Measurement in T o day*s Schools. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1947-

New York:

Segel, David, "Prediction of Success in College," United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 15* 193^* •

Seider, D. F., "The Prognostic Values of Reading Compre­ hension Scores on School Grades for Two Years at the University of Southern California." Unpublished Mas t e r fs thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1928. Seyler, E. C., "The Value of Rank in High School Graduating Class for Predicting Freshman Scholarship," Journal of the Association of Collegiate Registrars, 15:5-22, October, 1939Spindt, H. A., "The Public High School and the University," California Journal of Secondary Education, 24:9-14, February, 1932. Symonds, P. M., "Choice of Items of Tests on Basis of Diffi­ culty," Journal of Educational Psychology, 20:481-493* March, 1929Thorndike, E. L., "Elimination of Pupils from School," United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, Number 4, 1907• Traxler, A. E., Techniques of Guidance. tional Records Bureau, 1945-

New York:

Educa—

_______ , "Reliability, Constancy, and Validity of the Otis I. Q.," Journal of Applied Psychology, 18:241-51, April, 1934. Varnardo, G. R., "A Further Study of the Predictive Value of Various Criteria on Achievement in Freshman Math­ ematics at Louisiana State University." Unpublished Master's thesis, Louisiana State University, 1939 reported in Louisiana State University Bulletin 32NS197* 1940.

159 Votaw, D . , "A Comparison of Test Scores of Entering College Freshmen as Instruments for Predicting Subsequent Scholarship,11 Journal of Educational Research, 40:215-19* November, 1946"! Wagner, M. E., ’’Prediction of College Performance.” Un­ published Doctorfs dissertation, University of Buffalo, 1934, reported by R. Gray, ’’Bibliography of Research Studies in Education,” United States Office of Education Bulletin, Number 4, 1935* Williams, L. A., Secondary Schools for American Y o u t h . York: American Book Company, 1944.

New