• Norbert Knoche
  • Robert L. Lindsay
  • Ann F. McAloon
  • R. E. Roberts


Let us begin our considerations with an example: Suppose that among 1000 applicants for a certain training program there are 200 persons who are really suitable for this training, which means that these persons are considered satisfactory before testing. Let us further suppose that only 200 places are available, so the 200 persons have to be selected from the group of applicants. In order to select these persons an aptitude test with validity of r = 0.5 is administered to the group, and the 200 examinees having the highest test scores are selected. Under the (restrictive) assumption that the test variable and the criterion variable have a bivariate normal distribution, we find among the 200 selected persons (only) 88 of the 200 examinees who were judged to be satisfactorily prepared, which means that 112 poorly prepared persons are selected by the test and thereby 112 of the applicants whose performance was satisfactory are rejected.


Mathematics Achievement School Leaver Educational Measurement Numerical Skill Validity Coefficient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Lord, F.M. A theory of test scores. Psychometric Monograph, 1952, No. 7.Google Scholar
  2. Taylor, H.C. & Russell, J.T. The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: Discussion and tables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1939, 23, 565–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 1.
    Ebel, Robert L. Practical Problems in Educational Measurement. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Co., 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    National Advisory Committe on Mathematical Education. Overview and Analysis of School Mathematics, Grades K-I2. Washington, D.C.: Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    National Assessment of Educational Progress. Changes in Mathematical Achievement 1973–1978. Report No. 09-Ma-01. Denver, Colorado: National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. An Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    National Institute of Education. Testing, Teaching, and Learning: Report of a Conference on Research on Testing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Project Torque: A New Approach to the Assessment of Children’s Mathematical Competence. Newton, Massachusetts: Education Development Center, Inc., 1976.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Sherman, Matthew. The DICOM Concept. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 1.
    American Association of School Administrators. The Competency Movement: Problems and Solutions. Arlington, Va.: American Association of School Administrators, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 2.
    Begle, E.G. Critical Variables in Mathematics Education: Findings From a Survey of the Empirical Literature. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. 3.
    Bloom, Benjamin, Hastings, J. Thomas, and Madaus, George F. Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.Google Scholar
  13. 4.
    Braswell, James. “The College Board Scholastic Aptitude Test: An Overview of the Mathematical Portion,” Mathematics Teacher, March 1978, vol. 71, pp. 168–80.Google Scholar
  14. 5.
    Bunda, Mary A. and Sanders, James (Eds.). Practices and Problems in Competency-Based Measurement. National Council on Measurement in Education Monograph, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. 6.
    Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. Needs of Elementary and Secondary Education in the 1980’s: A Compendium of Policy Papers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. 7.
    Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. Oversight Hearing on Mathematics Achievement. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. 8.
    Ferguson, Richard and Schmeiser, Cynthia. “The Mathematics Usage Test of the ACT Assessment Program: An Overview of Its Purpose, Content, and Use,” Mathematics Teacher, March 1978, vo.. 71, pp. 182–191.Google Scholar
  18. 9.
    Glass, Gene V. Standards and Criteria. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. 10.
    Herndon, Enid. “NIE’s study of minimum competency testing: A process for the clarification of issues.” Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Boulder, Colorado, 1980.Google Scholar
  20. 11.
    Jaeger, Richard and Tittle, Carol (Eds.). Minimum Competency Achievement Testing: Motives, Models, Measures, and Consequences. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Company, 1980.Google Scholar
  21. 12.
    The Mathematical Association of America. Prime 80: Proceedings of a Conference on Prospects in Mathematics Education in the 1980’s. Washington, D.C.: Mathematics Association of America, 1978.Google Scholar
  22. 13.
    National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. Position paper on mathematical skills. Mathematics Teacher, February 1978, vol 71, pp. 147–152.Google Scholar
  23. 14.
    National Education Association. Measurement and Testing: An NEA Perspective. Research Memo. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1980.Google Scholar
  24. 15.
    National Institute of Education. A Study of Minimum Competency Testing Programs: Comprehensive Report. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. 16.
    National Institute of Education. Achievement Testing and Basic Skills: Conference Proceedings. The National Conference on Achievement Testing and Basic Skills. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1979.Google Scholar
  26. 17.
    National School Boards Association. Standardized Testing: A Research Report. Washington, D.C.: National School Boards Association, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. 18.
    National School Public Relations Association. The Competency Challenge: What Schools are Doing. Arlington, Va.: National Schools Public Relations Association, 1978.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    National Science Foundation. Report, of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    National Science Foundation. The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education Practices in the U.S. Schools: An Overview and Summaries of Three Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    Orr, David. Measurement in Education in the I980’s-A Federal Perspective. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1980.Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    Suydam, Marilyn N. Evaluation in the Mathematics Classroom: From What and Why to How and Where. Columbus: ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, 1974.Google Scholar
  32. 23.
    Testing Team Research Program for 1980. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1980.Google Scholar
  33. 24.
    Thorndike, Robert (Ed.). Educational Measurement. 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971.Google Scholar
  34. 25.
    Thorndike, Robert and Hagen, Elizabeth. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969.Google Scholar
  35. 26.
    Department of Health, Education and Welfare. What Do We Know About Standards for Effective Basic Skills Programs? Washington, D.C.: HEW, Office of Education, 1979Google Scholar
  36. Bajpai, A.C. 1971: A Feasibility Study into the Teaching of Mathematics at the Tertiary Level with Particular Reference to Technical Education in the Territory of New Papua New Guinea, Nuffield, University of Loughborough, England.Google Scholar
  37. Britt, M. 1979: Evaluation of Secondary Mathematics Learning, UNESCO Mathematics Project, Port Moresby.Google Scholar
  38. Edwards, A. 1979: Preliminary Report on the Basic Skills Arithmetic Test Carried Out in Post-Secondary Institutions in Papua New Guinea in 1979, Mathematics Education Centre, Report No. 6, Papua New Guinea University of Technology.Google Scholar
  39. Lancy, D.F. 1979: An Examination and Evaluation System, Education Research 1976–1979: Report and Essays, Department of Education, Port Moresby.Google Scholar
  40. Nightingale, D. 1979: Mastery Levels Assessment: The Nelson-Marlborough Experience 1975–1979, Nelson Community Education Service, Nelson, New Zeal and.Google Scholar
  41. Roakeina, G. 1977: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Standards of High School Students Entering Colleges, Department of Education, Port Moresby.Google Scholar
  42. Roberts, R.E. 1978: Primary Mathematics in Papua New Guinea, Papua New Guinea Journal of Education, 14: 201–216.Google Scholar
  43. Roberts, R.E. and Kada V. 1979: The PrimaryGoogle Scholar
  44. Mathematics Classroom, Papua New Guinea Journal of Education, 15: 174–201.Google Scholar
  45. Siford, M. 1 979: Research Project to Investigate an Alternative Grade IO Examination System, University of Papua New Guinea.Google Scholar
  46. Townsend, G., Guthrie, G., and O’Driscoll, M. 1980: Proposals for a Criterion-Referenced Measurement System for Community and Provincial High Schools, Report to the Secretary for Education, Port Moresby.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Boston, Inc. 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Knoche
    • 1
  • Robert L. Lindsay
    • 2
  • Ann F. McAloon
    • 3
  • R. E. Roberts
    • 4
  1. 1.Universitat EssenEssenFederal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.Shell Centre for Mathematical EducationNottingham UniversityUK
  3. 3.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA
  4. 4.Department of EducationPapuaNew Guinea

Personalised recommendations