Hubbry Logo
Test scoreTest scoreMain
Open search
Test score
Community hub
Test score
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Test score
Test score
Test score
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Grading in education
Africa
North America
South America
Asia
Europe
Oceania

A test score is a piece of information, usually a number, that conveys the performance of an examinee on a test. One formal definition is that it is "a summary of the evidence contained in an examinee's responses to the items of a test that are related to the construct or constructs being measured."[1]

Test scores are interpreted with a norm-referenced or criterion-referenced interpretation, or occasionally both. A norm-referenced interpretation means that the score conveys meaning about the examinee with regards to their standing among other examinees. A criterion-referenced interpretation means that the score conveys information about the examinee with regard to a specific subject matter, regardless of other examinees' scores.[2]

Types

[edit]

There are two types of test scores: raw scores and scaled scores. A raw score is a score without any sort of adjustment or transformation, such as the simple number of questions answered correctly. A scaled score is the result of some transformation(s) applied to the raw score, such as in relative grading.

The purpose of scaled scores is to report scores for all examinees on a consistent scale. Suppose that a test has two forms, and one is more difficult than the other. It has been determined by equating that a score of 65% on form 1 is equivalent to a score of 68% on form 2. Scores on both forms can be converted to a scale so that these two equivalent scores have the same reported scores. For example, they could both be a score of 350 on a scale of 100 to 500.

Two well-known tests in the United States that have scaled scores are the ACT and the SAT. The ACT's scale ranges from 0 to 36 and the SAT's from 200 to 800 (per section). Ostensibly, these two scales were selected to represent a mean and standard deviation of 18 and 6 (ACT), and 500 and 100. The upper and lower bounds were selected because an interval of plus or minus three standard deviations contains more than 99% of a population. Scores outside that range are difficult to measure, and return little practical value.

Note that scaling does not affect the psychometric properties of a test; it is something that occurs after the assessment process (and equating, if present) is completed. Therefore, it is not an issue of psychometrics, per se, but an issue of interpretability.

Scoring information loss

[edit]
A test question might require a student to calculate the area of a triangle. Compare the information provided in these two answers.
A simple triangle with height marked
Area = 7.5 cm2
An identical simple triangle with height marked
Base = 5 cm; Height = 3 cm
Area = 1/2(Base × Height)
= 1/2(5 cm × 3 cm)
= 7.5 cm2
The first shows scoring information loss. The teacher knows whether the student got the right answer, but does not know how the student arrived at the answer. If the answer is wrong, the teacher does not know whether the student was guessing, made a simple error, or fundamentally misunderstands the subject.

When tests are scored right-wrong, an important assumption has been made about learning. The number of right answers or the sum of item scores (where partial credit is given) is assumed to be the appropriate and sufficient measure of current performance status. In addition, a secondary assumption is made that there is no meaningful information in the wrong answers.

In the first place, a correct answer can be achieved using memorization without any profound understanding of the underlying content or conceptual structure of the problem posed. Second, when more than one step for solution is required, there are often a variety of approaches to answering that will lead to a correct result. The fact that the answer is correct does not indicate which of the several possible procedures were used. When the student supplies the answer (or shows the work) this information is readily available from the original documents.

Second, if the wrong answers were blind guesses, there would be no information to be found among these answers. On the other hand, if wrong answers reflect interpretation departures from the expected one, these answers should show an ordered relationship to whatever the overall test is measuring. This departure should be dependent upon the level of psycholinguistic maturity of the student choosing or giving the answer in the vernacular in which the test is written.

In this second case it should be possible to extract this order from the responses to the test items.[3] Such extraction processes, the Rasch model for instance, are standard practice for item development among professionals. However, because the wrong answers are discarded during the scoring process, analysis of these answers for the information they might contain is seldom undertaken.

Third, although topic-based subtest scores are sometimes provided, the more common practice is to report the total score or a rescaled version of it. This rescaling is intended to compare these scores to a standard of some sort. This further collapse of the test results systematically removes all the information about which particular items were missed.

Thus, scoring a test right–wrong loses 1) how students achieved their correct answers, 2) what led them astray towards unacceptable answers and 3) where within the body of the test this departure from expectation occurred.

This commentary suggests that the current scoring procedure conceals the dynamics of the test-taking process and obscures the capabilities of the students being assessed. Current scoring practice oversimplifies these data in the initial scoring step. The result of this procedural error is to obscure diagnostic information that could help teachers serve their students better. It further prevents those who are diligently preparing these tests from being able to observe the information that would otherwise have alerted them to the presence of this error.

A solution to this problem, known as Response Spectrum Evaluation (RSE),[4] is currently being developed that appears to be capable of recovering all three of these forms of information loss, while still providing a numerical scale to establish current performance status and to track performance change.

This RSE approach provides an interpretation of every answer, whether right or wrong, that indicates the likely thought processes used by the test taker.[5] Among other findings, this chapter reports that the recoverable information explains between two and three times more of the test variability than considering only the right answers. This massive loss of information can be explained by the fact that the "wrong" answers are removed from the information being collected during the scoring process and are no longer available to reveal the procedural error inherent in right-wrong scoring. The procedure bypasses the limitations produced by the linear dependencies inherent in test data.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Test score

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A test score is a numerical quantification of an individual's performance on a standardized assessment, derived from psychometric principles to measure latent traits such as cognitive ability, , or specific skills, with reliability indicating consistency across administrations and validity ensuring the score reflects the intended construct. Test scores underpin critical decisions in education, employment, and policy, demonstrating strong for outcomes including academic attainment, occupational success, and earnings, as evidenced by longitudinal studies linking higher scores to enhanced life achievements independent of socioeconomic factors. Empirical data further reveal high estimates for intelligence-related test scores, typically ranging from 50% to 80% in adulthood, reflecting substantial genetic influences alongside environmental modulation, which challenges purely malleability-focused interpretations. Controversies persist regarding group differences in average scores across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines, with critics alleging despite evidence that such tests maintain within diverse populations and that heritabilities do not substantially vary by group; efforts to minimize differences often compromise overall validity, underscoring the tension between equity aims and empirical fidelity. These debates highlight academia's occasional prioritization of ideological narratives over causal mechanisms, such as the general factor (g), which robustly explains score variances and real-world correlations.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

A test score is a numerical or categorical quantification of an individual's performance on a standardized assessment, reflecting the degree to which the test-taker has demonstrated mastery of the targeted , skills, or abilities. In , it serves as the primary output for interpreting results, often starting from a raw score—the total number of correct responses or points earned—and potentially transformed into derived metrics for comparability. These scores enable decisions in educational, occupational, and clinical contexts by providing evidence-based indicators of competence relative to predefined criteria or norms. Raw scores, while foundational, possess limited standalone interpretability, as they depend on test length, item difficulty, and scoring rules specific to each instrument. Derived scores address this by scaling results—such as through standard scores (e.g., with a of 100 and standard deviation of 15) or percentiles indicating rank within a reference group—to facilitate cross-individual and cross-test comparisons. For instance, (ETS) assessments convert raw points into scaled scores ranging from 200 to 800 for sections like SAT Reading and Writing, ensuring consistency across administrations despite variations in test forms. The validity of a test score as a meaningful construct hinges on its alignment with the intended measurement domain, governed by where the observed score equals true ability plus measurement error. Empirical reliability, assessed via coefficients like exceeding 0.80 for high-stakes uses, underpins score trustworthiness, though institutional biases in norming samples can introduce systematic distortions if not representative.

Historical Origins

The earliest known system of competitive examinations with evaluative scoring emerged in ancient during the (206 BCE–220 CE), where candidates for imperial bureaucracy were assessed on knowledge of Confucian classics through written responses graded by officials to determine merit-based appointments. This evolved into a formalized process under the (581–618 CE), with the keju system fully instituted by 605 CE, involving multi-stage testing of essays and poetry that were scored hierarchically—passing candidates received ranks influencing career progression, emphasizing rote and scholarly over . By the (618–907 CE), these exams included numerical-like banding of results, such as quotas for provincial versus palace-level passers, laying foundational principles for performance-based quantification in selection processes. In the Western tradition, evaluative testing initially relied on oral examinations in medieval European universities, such as those at the from the 11th century, where disputations were judged qualitatively by faculty without standardized numerical scores. The shift toward written, scored assessments accelerated in the amid industrialization and public education expansion; in 1845, , Massachusetts Secretary of Education, advocated replacing oral exams with uniform written tests for schools to enable objective grading and accountability, marking an early pivot to quantifiable student performance metrics. By the mid-1800s, U.S. institutions like Harvard implemented entrance exams with scored results to standardize admissions amid rising enrollment diversity, influencing broader adoption of scaled evaluations. The advent of modern psychological test scores originated in early 20th-century , driven by needs to identify educational needs; in 1905, French psychologists and Théodore Simon developed the Binet-Simon scale, the first intelligence test assigning age-equivalent scores to children's cognitive tasks, calibrated against norms to quantify deviations from average performance for remedial placement. This metric, yielding a "mental age" score, introduced deviation-based quantification—later formalized as the (IQ) by William Stern in 1912—enabling numerical representation of aptitude beyond achievement. Concurrently, U.S. educational testing advanced with the College Entrance Examination Board’s 1901 administration of scored exams in nine subjects, precursors to tools like (1926), which aggregated raw correct answers into ranks for . These developments prioritized empirical norming over subjective judgment, though early implementations often reflected cultural assumptions in item selection, as critiqued in psychometric histories.

Types of Test Scores

Cognitive and Intelligence Tests

Cognitive and intelligence tests evaluate an individual's mental capabilities, including , verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, , and processing speed, through standardized tasks designed to minimize cultural and educational biases where possible. These tests yield scores that reflect performance relative to age-matched peers, typically expressed as an (IQ), which serves as a proxy for general cognitive ability. The IQ score is normed to a of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 in the general population, allowing classification into ranges such as 85-115 for average ability, above 130 for gifted, and below 70 for . Prominent examples include the (WAIS) and (WISC), which aggregate subtest scores into composite indices—verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, , and processing speed—culminating in a full-scale IQ. Other instruments, such as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales or , emphasize fluid via non-verbal puzzles, reducing reliance on language skills. Scores from these tests exhibit a positive manifold, where performance across diverse cognitive domains correlates positively, underpinning the extraction of a general factor (g), which accounts for approximately 40-50% of variance in test batteries and represents core reasoning efficiency rather than domain-specific skills. Empirical data from twin and adoption studies indicate that IQ scores are substantially , with estimates rising from about 0.20 in infancy to 0.80 in adulthood, reflecting increasing genetic influence as environmental factors equalize in high-resource settings. This heritability aligns with polygenic scores from genome-wide association studies, which explain up to 10-20% of IQ variance directly, though shared environment plays a larger role in lower socioeconomic strata. IQ scores demonstrate robust for real-world outcomes, correlating 0.5-0.7 with , occupational success, and income, independent of socioeconomic origin; for instance, each standard deviation increase in IQ predicts roughly 1-2 additional years of schooling and higher job complexity tolerance. These associations hold longitudinally, with childhood IQ forecasting adult achievements even after controlling for parental status, underscoring g's causal role in adapting to cognitive demands over specialized . While critics in academic circles, often influenced by egalitarian priors, question IQ's breadth, meta-analyses affirm its superiority over other predictors like traits for outcomes involving learning and problem-solving.

Achievement and Academic Tests

Achievement tests evaluate the extent to which individuals have mastered specific knowledge, skills, or competencies acquired through formal instruction, training, or life experiences, distinguishing them from aptitude tests that primarily gauge innate potential or capacity for future learning. These tests focus on curricular content, such as mathematics, reading, or science proficiency, reflecting the outcomes of educational processes rather than general cognitive abilities. In psychological assessment, achievement tests are designed to measure learned material objectively, often serving diagnostic, evaluative, or accountability purposes in educational settings. Prominent examples include standardized assessments like and ACT, which, despite historical aptitude framing, increasingly emphasize achievement in core academic domains for college admissions. Other widely administered tests encompass the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, TerraNova, and state-mandated exams aligned with curricula, such as those under the No Child Left Behind framework or standards. Internationally, programs like the () and Trends in International Mathematics and Study (TIMSS) provide comparative achievement across countries, focusing on applied knowledge in reading, math, and . Scores on achievement tests are typically derived from raw counts of correct responses, transformed into scaled scores for comparability across administrations and age or grade norms. These may employ norm-referenced methods, yielding percentiles or stanines relative to a representative sample, or criterion-referenced approaches, indicating mastery against predefined standards (e.g., proficient or basic levels). For instance, the (NAEP) uses scale scores ranging from 0 to 500, categorizing performance into levels like "advanced" or "below basic" based on empirical benchmarks. Empirically, scores demonstrate substantial for subsequent academic outcomes, such as grade-point average (GPA), with correlations often ranging from 0.3 to 0.5, outperforming high school GPA in isolation at selective institutions. Combining s with high school grades enhances prediction of first-year success by up to 25% over grades alone, underscoring their utility in forecasting performance amid varying instructional quality. Persistent group differences in scores—such as those observed across socioeconomic or demographic lines—align with variations in prior learning opportunities and instructional exposure, though debates persist on environmental versus inherent factors, with mainstream academic sources often emphasizing malleability despite stagnant gaps over decades.

Aptitude and Predictive Tests

tests measure an individual's inherent potential to acquire new skills or succeed in specific domains, focusing on capacities developed over time rather than immediate knowledge or expertise. These assessments differ from achievement tests, which evaluate mastered content from prior instruction, by emphasizing predictive qualities for future learning or performance; for instance, tests often incorporate novel tasks to gauge adaptability and reasoning independent of schooling. In , such tests typically yield scores transformed into norms or stanines to compare against reference groups, enabling inferences about relative strengths in areas like verbal, numerical, or spatial reasoning. The Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT), developed for grades 7-12 students and adults, exemplify comprehensive aptitude batteries, assessing eight specific including verbal reasoning, numerical ability, abstract reasoning, mechanical reasoning, and space relations through timed, multiple-choice items. Originally termed the Scholastic Aptitude Test, —along with the ACT—serves as a scholastic aptitude measure for admissions, evaluating , writing, and via standardized formats, though coaching effects have shifted interpretations toward hybrid aptitude-achievement constructs. Vocational aptitude tests, such as components of the DAT, guide by profiling aptitudes against occupational demands, with scores often profiled in graphical formats for interpretive clarity. Empirical evidence underscores the predictive utility of aptitude tests; SAT scores correlate with first-year college GPA at 0.3 to 0.5, with higher validity (up to 0.62 in some models) for high-ability cohorts and sustained prediction across undergraduate years. In employment contexts, meta-analyses of cognitive measures—core to many aptitude batteries—reveal operational validities of 0.51 for job and 0.56 for success, outperforming other predictors like years of . These correlations hold across job levels and experience durations, attributing efficacy to underlying general mental ability (g) factors, though validities attenuate slightly in complex, experience-heavy roles without structured criteria.

Measurement and Scoring Methods

Raw Scores and Transformations

Raw scores constitute the initial, unadjusted measure of on a , typically calculated as the total number of correct responses or points earned by a test-taker. For instance, on a multiple-choice with 100 items, a raw score of 85 indicates 85 correct answers, without accounting for test length, difficulty, or performance. These scores are directly derived from the test administration and serve as the foundational input for further processing, but they possess limited standalone interpretability due to variations across tests in item count, scoring rubrics, and difficulty levels. To enable meaningful comparisons and statistical analysis, raw scores undergo transformations that standardize or rescale them relative to a normative sample's and standard deviation. One primary method is the z-score transformation, defined as z=x−μσz = \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma}, where xx is the raw score, μ\mu is the group , and σ\sigma is the standard deviation. This yields a score indicating deviations from the mean in standard deviation units, facilitating cross-test comparability and assumption of approximate normality for inferential statistics; a z-score of +1.5, for example, places performance 1.5 standard deviations above the mean. Derived from z-scores, T-scores apply a linear transformation to achieve a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10, computed as T=50+10zT = 50 + 10z, which enhances interpretability by avoiding negative values and decimals common in raw z-scores. Similarly, scaled scores often involve affine transformations to a fixed range, such as converting raw totals to a 200-800 scale in assessments like , preserving rank order while equating difficulty across test forms. These methods, rooted in psychometric norming during test development, mitigate raw score limitations by embedding population-referenced context, though their validity hinges on representative norm groups and equating procedures to ensure score invariance across administrations.

Norm-Referenced Scoring

Norm-referenced scoring evaluates a test-taker's performance relative to a predefined norm group, typically a representative sample of individuals who have previously taken the test, rather than against an absolute standard of mastery. This approach ranks scores on a continuum, often using derived metrics such as percentiles or standard scores, to indicate how an individual compares to peers in the norm group. For instance, a percentile rank of 75 signifies that the test-taker outperformed 75% of the norm group. The process begins with administering the test to a standardization or normative sample, which must be large—often thousands of participants—and demographically diverse to reflect the target population, ensuring the norms' applicability and reliability. Raw scores are then transformed using statistical methods: percentiles distribute scores across a 1-99 scale based on cumulative frequencies from the norm group, while standard scores like z-scores (mean of 0, standard deviation of 1) or T-scores (mean of 50, standard deviation of 10) standardize distributions for easier comparison across tests or subgroups. These transformations assume a normal distribution in the norm group, allowing for interpretations of relative standing, such as identifying top performers for selective admissions. Reliability of norm-referenced scores hinges on the norm group's recency and representativeness; outdated norms (e.g., from samples predating demographic shifts) or non-representative ones (e.g., lacking cultural or socioeconomic diversity) can distort interpretations, leading to misclassifications like over- or under-identifying high-ability individuals. Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize regression-based updates to raw score distributions over simple tabulation to enhance norm quality and predictive accuracy. In practice, tests like or employ periodic renorming—every 10-15 years—to maintain validity, with norm groups stratified by age, gender, ethnicity, and geography. Applications include aptitude tests for college admissions, where norm-referenced scores facilitate for limited spots, and IQ assessments, which use age-based norms to gauge cognitive deviation from averages. Unlike criterion-referenced scoring, which measures against fixed benchmarks (e.g., passing a by meeting safety criteria), norm-referenced methods excel in competitive contexts but may obscure absolute proficiency if the norm group performs poorly overall. Empirical studies confirm higher inter-rater consistency in criterion approaches for some evaluations, underscoring norm-referenced scoring's sensitivity to group variability.

Criterion-Referenced Scoring

Criterion-referenced scoring evaluates test performance against a predetermined set of criteria or standards, determining the extent to which an has mastered specific or skills rather than comparing them to a . This approach interprets scores as indicators of absolute proficiency, such as achieving a fixed threshold (e.g., 80% correct responses) to demonstrate competence in defined objectives. Criteria are typically derived from goals or performance levels, ensuring scores reflect alignment with intended learning outcomes independent of group norms. In practice, criterion-referenced scoring involves constructing tests where items directly map to explicit standards, often using binary pass/fail judgments, ordinal mastery levels (e.g., , proficient, advanced), or continuous scales tied to benchmarks. For instance, a test might require solving 90% of algebra problems correctly to meet the "proficient" criterion, with scores reported as the proportion of criteria met. Developing reliable criteria demands content validation through expert review and alignment with empirical skill hierarchies, as subjective standard-setting can introduce variability. Unlike norm-referenced methods, which rank individuals via distributions, this scoring prioritizes diagnostic feedback for remediation or advancement. Advantages include its utility in instructional decision-making, as it identifies precise gaps in mastery for targeted interventions, and its emphasis on universal standards that promote equity in skill acquisition across diverse groups. Studies indicate higher in criterion-referenced formats compared to norm-referenced scaling, particularly in performance-based evaluations, due to anchored judgments reducing subjective comparisons. However, challenges arise from the difficulty in establishing defensible cut scores, which may lack empirical grounding if not piloted rigorously, potentially leading to inconsistent proficiency classifications across contexts. remains essential, as tests must comprehensively sample the criterion domain to avoid under- or overestimation of true ability. Common applications span educational summative assessments, such as state-mandated proficiency exams in language arts and , where scores gauge alignment with grade-level standards. Vocational examples include certification tests like exams, which require passing fixed skill demonstrations (e.g., parallel parking maneuvers) irrespective of cohort performance. In classroom settings, tools like writing rubrics or benchmarks provide criterion-referenced feedback on specific competencies. Empirical evidence supports its role in fostering progression-focused learning, though reliability hinges on test design that minimizes ambiguity in criteria application.

Validity, Reliability, and Predictive Power

Statistical Reliability

Statistical reliability in test scores refers to the degree of consistency and stability in measurements obtained from a test, reflecting the extent to which scores are free from random error and reproducible under similar conditions. In , reliability is quantified by coefficients ranging from 0 to 1, where values above 0.80 are generally considered acceptable for high-stakes decisions, and those exceeding 0.90 indicate excellent consistency. This property is foundational, as unreliable scores undermine inferences about examinee , though high reliability does not guarantee validity. Reliability is assessed through several methods grounded in . Test-retest reliability measures score stability by correlating results from the same test administered to the same group at different times, typically separated by weeks to months to minimize memory effects while capturing trait consistency. , often via , evaluates how well items within a single administration covary, assuming unidimensionality; alphas above 0.70 suggest adequate homogeneity for educational and cognitive tests. Parallel-forms reliability compares equivalent test versions, while split-half methods divide items to estimate consistency. For cognitive tests like the (WAIS), test-retest coefficients reach 0.95, and for the (WISC-V), they average 0.92 over short intervals. Standardized achievement tests, such as those in or reading, often yield test-retest reliabilities of 0.80 to 0.90, with internal consistencies similarly high when item pools are large.
Reliability TypeDescriptionTypical Coefficient Range for Standardized Tests
Test-RetestConsistency over time (e.g., 1-4 weeks interval)0.80–0.95
Internal Consistency (Cronbach's α)Item homogeneity within one form0.70–0.90
Parallel FormsEquivalence across alternate versions0.75–0.90
Factors influencing reliability include test construction elements like length and item quality: longer tests with heterogeneous yet relevant items yield higher coefficients by averaging out errors, as shorter tests amplify sampling variability. Examinee variability, such as , , or fluctuations, introduces error variance, while administration inconsistencies (e.g., timing, instructions) or scoring ambiguities reduce stability. Group heterogeneity boosts coefficients due to greater true score variance, but practice effects in short retest intervals can inflate them artifactually. Empirical data from large-scale assessments confirm that optimizing these—through rigorous item analysis and standardized protocols—elevates reliability, as seen in IQ tests maintaining coefficients above 0.90 across diverse samples despite potential biases in academic reporting that may underemphasize such strengths.

Predictive Validity in Outcomes

General cognitive ability (GCA), often measured by IQ tests or similar assessments, demonstrates robust for key life outcomes, including , occupational performance, and . A of longitudinal studies found that correlates at 0.56 with years of , 0.43 with , and 0.27 with , with predictive power increasing for and occupational status measured later in but stabilizing or slightly declining for after age 30. These associations persist after controlling for socioeconomic origins, underscoring GCA's independent role in forecasting success. In occupational contexts, GCA tests predict job across diverse roles, with meta-analytic showing an operational validity of 0.51 for and 0.56 for proficiency, outperforming other predictors like work samples or assessments of specific abilities. This holds for complex jobs requiring reasoning and problem-solving, where GCA explains up to 25-30% of variance in proficiency; validity remains stable or increases with job experience, contradicting claims of . For and hands-on tasks, GCA similarly forecasts , with correlations around 0.40-0.50 even in practical simulations. Achievement tests like and ACT exhibit for postsecondary outcomes, correlating 0.36-0.48 with first-year GPA when combined with high school GPA (HSGPA), and adding incremental value beyond HSGPA alone for retention and degree completion. Meta-analyses confirm ACT scores predict grades at r=0.42 and retention at r=0.28, with stronger effects in STEM fields; HSGPA edges out tests for cumulative GPA (r=0.50 vs. 0.40) but tests enhance long-term success forecasts, such as six-year graduation rates. These validities apply broadly, though attenuated by range restriction in selective admissions. Beyond academics and work, GCA links to and outcomes, with higher scores associating to lower mortality risk ( 0.84 per SD increase) via behavioral and socioeconomic pathways. Personality traits like add modest incremental (r0.10-0.20) to GCA for some criteria, but GCA remains the dominant factor for objective measures of attainment. Empirical patterns refute narratives minimizing test utility for equity reasons, as validities derive from causal mechanisms like learning capacity and .

Heritability and Innate Factors

Heritability estimates for intelligence, as measured by cognitive test scores such as IQ assessments, range from 50% to 80% in adults based on twin and family studies, indicating that genetic factors explain a substantial portion of individual differences. Early twin studies report heritability between 57% and 73% for adult IQ, with estimates increasing with age as shared environmental influences diminish. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) corroborate this, showing that inherited DNA sequence differences account for approximately half the variance in intelligence measures, with polygenic scores predicting 2-4% of variance in cognitive ability from childhood to adolescence. For tests, twin studies yield heritability around 60%, stable across school years and subjects, while SNP-based from GWAS is lower but confirms genetic contributions beyond alone. Genetic factors also link non-cognitive traits like to achievement, with GWAS identifying overlapping polygenic influences on grades, ability, and . Longitudinal data from monozygotic twins reared apart demonstrate increasing IQ resemblance over time, underscoring the growing dominance of genetic effects as individuals age and select environments correlated with their genotypes. Innate factors manifest through polygenic architecture rather than single genes, with general cognitive ability (g) showing high stability from , driven primarily by genetic influences rather than environmental ones. While environmental interventions like schooling can shift IQ scores by 1-15 points, such effects do not negate the causal role of in baseline differences, as evidenced by twin discordance minimized when is equated. Empirical separation of genetic from environmental variance relies on methods like adoption studies and GWAS, which control for shared environments, revealing that innate endowments—polygenic predispositions—underpin much of the variance in test performance outcomes. Despite institutional tendencies in academia to emphasize nurture, these data from diverse methodologies affirm genetic realism over purely environmental explanations.

Controversies and Empirical Debates

Allegations of Cultural or Racial Bias

Allegations that standardized tests exhibit cultural or racial have persisted since the early , primarily contending that test items incorporate , analogies, and problem-solving approaches derived from white, middle-class Western experiences, thereby disadvantaging non-white or lower-socioeconomic groups. Proponents of this view, often from within academic fields influenced by environmentalist paradigms, cite persistent score gaps—such as the approximately 15-point difference in average IQ scores between black and white Americans—as evidence of systemic unfairness rather than differences in underlying cognitive ability. These claims gained traction in the 1960s and 1970s amid civil rights debates, with critics arguing that tests like the Stanford-Binet or SAT perpetuate inequality by assuming cultural neutrality while embedding biases in content and administration. Empirical assessments of , however, have largely refuted these allegations through rigorous psychometric methods. (DIF) analyses, which detect whether test items perform differently across groups after controlling for overall ability, reveal minimal uniform or non-uniform in modern tests; for instance, studies on large samples find DIF in only a small fraction of items (e.g., 3 out of hundreds in health-related assessments), with negligible impact on total scores. —the extent to which test scores forecast real-world outcomes like academic grades or —remains comparable across racial groups, contradicting bias claims: meta-analyses show coefficients between cognitive tests and criteria (e.g., 0.5-0.6 for ) are statistically equivalent for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, even without corrections for range restriction. If tests were biased against minorities, they would overpredict outcomes for those groups by underestimating true ability; instead, predictions hold or slightly underpredict, as documented in longitudinal studies. Further evidence against cultural bias emerges from "culture-reduced" or non-verbal tests, such as , designed to minimize linguistic and experiential loading: black-white score gaps persist at similar magnitudes (around 1 standard deviation) as on verbal tests, indicating that differences are not artifactual to specific cultural content. and twin studies, controlling for shared environment, attribute 50-80% of individual IQ variance to , with group differences showing patterns consistent with genetic influences rather than solely cultural ones; for example, transracial adoptions yield IQs intermediate between biological parents' groups, not converging to adoptive family norms. Critiques alleging often originate from sources with documented ideological tilts toward egalitarian outcomes over empirical rigor, as noted in reviews spanning decades, yet fail to account for these validity invariants. Recent analyses (post-2020) reaffirm this, with no substantial evidence of undermining test across diverse U.S. populations.

Meritocracy, Equity, and Group Differences

Standardized test scores serve as objective proxies for cognitive ability, enabling merit-based allocation of educational and professional opportunities, which correlates with subsequent performance outcomes such as GPA and job . In systems, high scores indicate greater , justifying prioritization over other factors like demographic representation. Empirical data from studies affirm that test scores forecast real-world success more reliably than subjective holistic reviews, which can introduce bias. Persistent group differences in test performance challenge equity-focused policies aiming for proportional outcomes across demographics. In the 2023 SAT cohort, Asian Americans averaged scores approximately 100-150 points higher than Whites, who in turn outperformed Hispanics by 100-150 points and Blacks by 150-200 points on the combined scale, with similar patterns in math sections mirroring broader cognitive gaps. These disparities, observed consistently across decades in IQ and aptitude tests, average 15 points between Black and White populations nationally, with East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews scoring highest overall. Twin and adoption studies estimate intelligence heritability at 50-80%, increasing to 70-80% in adulthood, implying genetic influences on individual variation that extend to aggregate group differences, as environmental interventions like SES equalization fail to close gaps substantially. Equity initiatives, such as affirmative action, often override test-based merit by lowering thresholds for underrepresented groups, prioritizing demographic balance over ability alignment. This produces mismatch, where beneficiaries enter selective environments beyond their preparation level, yielding higher attrition rates—e.g., Black law students admitted via preferences graduate and pass bar exams at rates 20-50% lower than peers at matched institutions. Richard Sander's analyses of LSAT and undergraduate data indicate that eliminating preferences would increase Black college completion and professional licensure without reducing overall representation, as more graduates emerge from better-suited schools. Critics attributing gaps solely to cultural or systemic factors overlook heritability evidence and controlled studies showing residuals persist post-adjustment for family income or education. Meritocratic adherence to test scores maximizes efficiency by matching talent to roles, fostering innovation and , whereas equity-driven equalization risks underutilizing high-ability individuals while overburdening lower-ability placements. Post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), institutions shifting to test-optional policies saw enrollment quality declines, with average applicant scores dropping amid efforts to sustain diversity quotas. Academic sources downplaying genetic components often reflect institutional incentives against hereditarian explanations, yet raw data from large-scale testing affirm differences as causally rooted in both and unbridgeable environmental variances.

Critiques of Test-Driven Policies

Critics of test-driven policies, particularly high-stakes standardized testing regimes like the U.S. (NCLB) enacted in 2001, argue that such approaches prioritize short-term score gains over genuine educational improvement, leading to systemic distortions in and learning. These policies tie school funding, teacher evaluations, and student promotion to test performance, ostensibly to enforce , but detractors contend they incentivize superficial compliance rather than deeper skill development. Empirical reviews indicate limited evidence that high-stakes exams yield pedagogical benefits beyond inflated metrics, with resources often redirected toward at the expense of broader instructional goals. A primary concern is the narrowing of the , where educators allocate disproportionate time to tested subjects like math and reading, sidelining areas such as , , and . A synthesis of over 30 studies found that more than 80% documented shifts toward test-aligned content and teacher-centered instruction, reducing instructional diversity and fostering rote memorization over . Surveys of teachers under NCLB confirmed this effect, with many reporting that state tests in core subjects drove compression, particularly in under-resourced schools serving low-income students. This phenomenon, observed in districts nationwide post-2001, correlates with decreased exposure to non-tested domains, potentially hindering long-term cognitive and creative development despite modest gains in targeted test scores. Campbell's Law, formulated by social scientist in 1976, encapsulates another critique: the more any quantitative social indicator—such as test scores—is used for , the more it becomes corrupted as manipulate behaviors to meet targets rather than achieve underlying objectives. In testing contexts, this manifests as "teaching to the test," scandals (e.g., educator-led erasures and answer-key alterations in states like Georgia and during the NCLB era), and selective student retention or exclusion to boost aggregate scores. High-stakes under NCLB amplified these pressures, with documented instances of schools excluding low-performing students from testing pools or focusing resources on "bubble" students near proficiency thresholds, undermining the policy's goal of equitable proficiency for all. Regarding outcomes, while NCLB correlated with initial math score improvements for elementary students—rising by about 7-12 points nationally from 2003 to 2007—critics highlight stagnant or negligible long-term gains in non-tested skills and persistent achievement gaps. Longitudinal analyses post-NCLB reveal no substantial closure of racial or socioeconomic disparities in deeper learning metrics, with sanctions like school restructuring showing mixed or null effects on broader proficiency. Teacher surveys indicate heightened dissatisfaction and burnout from testing mandates, with many citing reduced and increased workload as factors eroding professional morale, though some studies note offsetting rises in perceived support structures. Equity critiques focus on disproportionate burdens on groups, where low-income and minority-serving schools face harsher penalties for similar levels, exacerbating inequities without addressing root causes like disparities. Under NCLB, such schools experienced intensified narrowing and test prep, potentially limiting for students already facing systemic barriers, though empirical evidence on causal harm remains debated amid confounding variables like pre-existing inequalities. These policies, replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, underscore ongoing tensions between accountability metrics and comprehensive reform.

Applications and Uses

Educational Assessment and Admissions

Standardized tests in K-12 education, such as state-mandated assessments aligned with or similar standards, evaluate student proficiency in subjects like and reading to measure achievement against predefined benchmarks. These tests support accountability under federal laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), enabling comparisons across schools, districts, and states to inform resource allocation and policy reforms. They provide objective data on learning gaps, complementing subjective measures like teacher evaluations, though critics argue overemphasis can narrow curricula. In college admissions, scores from exams like and ACT serve as predictors of first-year grade point (GPA) and degree completion, with correlations typically ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 when combined with high GPA. A 2025 review of 72 peer-reviewed studies found mixed but generally supportive evidence for their validity in forecasting undergraduate performance, outperforming alternatives like high grades alone in some contexts. Test-optional policies, adopted widely after 2020, increased applications by up to 20-30% at selective institutions but showed marginal impacts on enrollment selectivity and no significant boost to retention rates. Such policies have raised concerns about student-program mismatch, particularly for lower-income applicants who often withhold scores despite potential benefits. For graduate admissions, the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) assesses verbal, quantitative, and analytical skills, adding incremental predictive value beyond undergraduate GPA for outcomes like graduate GPA and research productivity. A indicated GRE scores explain about 3-5% of variance in graduate success metrics, with quantitative sections showing stronger correlations in STEM fields. Despite this, over 50% of programs had eliminated GRE requirements by 2023, citing limited standalone utility and equity issues, though empirical on post-elimination outcomes remains sparse. In international contexts, tests like the TOEFL or IELTS supplement admissions by verifying , correlating with academic adaptation in non-native settings.

Employment Screening and Certification

Cognitive ability tests, which assess general mental (GMA), serve as a primary tool in screening to forecast candidates' job across diverse occupations. Meta-analyses consistently demonstrate that GMA exhibits the highest validity among individual predictors, with corrected correlations ranging from 0.51 for overall job to 0.65 when focusing on complex roles, outperforming alternatives like unstructured interviews (0.38) or years of experience (0.18). This predictive power stems from GMA's role in learning, adapting to novel tasks, and handling job , as evidenced by hundreds of validation studies spanning , , and manual labor positions. In practice, employers administer standardized tests during initial screening stages to rank applicants efficiently, often yielding substantial utility gains; for instance, selecting via GMA tests can boost workforce output by 20-50% compared to random hiring or biodata alone. These tools maintain stable validity even as job experience accumulates, with no significant decline in predictive strength over time. Legal constraints, such as U.S. Title VII requirements for job-relatedness, have curtailed overt use in some sectors since the 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power decision, yet indirect measures like work samples or structured interviews incorporating cognitive elements persist due to their validated efficacy. Professional certification relies on test scores to establish minimum competence thresholds for licensure in regulated fields, including (e.g., ), accounting (CPA exam), and healthcare (NCLEX for ). Exam designs incorporate criterion-related validity evidence, correlating scores with on-the-job metrics like error rates or supervisory ratings to justify passing standards. For example, bar exam performance predicts early legal practice outcomes, though scores explain only modest variance (around 0.10-0.20 uncorrected) due to multifaceted demands beyond tested knowledge. Certification bodies employ psychometric scaling to equate scores across administrations, ensuring decisions reflect enduring proficiency rather than test-specific artifacts. While critiques question overemphasis on cognitive measures for holistic competence, empirical linkages to reduced or improved client outcomes underscore their practical value in safeguarding public standards.

Research and Policy Evaluation

Standardized test scores serve as primary metrics for evaluating education policies, particularly in accountability systems that tie school funding, teacher evaluations, and interventions to student performance improvements. In the United States, policies like No Child Left Behind (2001) and its successor (2015) mandated annual testing in reading and for grades 3-8, using score gains to identify underperforming schools and trigger reforms such as restructuring or extended learning time. A of 26 studies on interventions for low-performing schools under these regimes found average effect sizes of 0.06 to 0.10 standard deviations on low-stakes and reading exams, with stronger impacts from teacher replacements (0.11 SD) and extended instructional time (0.07 SD), though no benefits were observed on high-stakes tests or non-test outcomes like . Research on test-based reveals mixed causal impacts on scores, often with short-term gains overshadowed by . For instance, accountability pressures increased average test scores by approximately 0.05-0.10 SD in affected districts but correlated with higher exclusion rates of low-performing students and narrowed focus, potentially inflating scores without enhancing broader skills. International evaluations using assessments like PISA and TIMSS similarly employ test scores to benchmark policy efficacy, showing that high-accountability systems in countries such as yield sustained score advantages (e.g., 50-100 points higher in math), attributable to rigorous teacher training and alignment rather than testing alone. However, a of competition induced by accountability found negligible average effects on public school test scores (-0.01 to 0.03 SD), challenging assumptions that market pressures reliably drive improvements. Targeted interventions evaluated via test scores demonstrate varying efficacy, emphasizing cognitive skill-building over broad structural changes. Meta-analyses of school-based programs for report small to moderate gains, such as 0.10-0.20 SD from phonics-focused reading interventions and peer-assessment strategies, but near-zero effects from general or class-size reductions beyond early grades. Growth mindset interventions, popularized in circles, yield average boosts of 0.12 SD in math and scores among secondary students, though effects diminish without sustained and fail to generalize across diverse populations. Critically, short-term test score improvements from such policies weakly predict long-run outcomes like or completion, with correlations as low as 0.20, suggesting evaluations should incorporate longitudinal data beyond immediate metrics. Policy evaluations increasingly apply empirical benchmarks to contextualize test score effects, comparing intervention gains against natural yearly progress (0.05-0.15 SD) or socioeconomic gaps (0.5-1.0 SD). For example, response-to-intervention models using diagnostic testing have improved reading scores by 0.15-0.25 SD for struggling elementary students through tiered supports, outperforming universal programs. Yet, accountability-driven reforms can harm non-tested grades or subgroups, with one analysis documenting score declines of 0.05 SD for younger students due to resource reallocation. These findings underscore that while test scores provide quantifiable feedback, causal inference requires randomized designs or rigorous quasi-experiments to distinguish true skill gains from gaming or regression artifacts, informing more effective allocations toward evidence-backed strategies like early training over unproven equity mandates.

Influences on Social Mobility

Higher scores, particularly those measuring general (g), are robust predictors of upward , enabling individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds to access better educational and occupational opportunities independent of parental status. Longitudinal analyses indicate that childhood IQ scores at age 11 forecast intergenerational occupational mobility, with each standard deviation increase in IQ associated with a 13-21 rise in the probability of upward movement from manual to non-manual occupations by midlife. This effect persists after adjusting for family socioeconomic position, suggesting test scores capture innate and developed abilities that drive achievement beyond inherited advantages. Standardized achievement tests similarly facilitate mobility by signaling merit in selective systems. For instance, SAT scores predict earnings in adulthood even conditional on parental and race, with high-scoring students from the bottom quintile earning substantially more—often crossing into top quintiles—than low scorers from affluent families. from multiple countries further demonstrate that elevated test scores around age 12 correlate with 1-2 additional years of schooling and higher postsecondary enrollment rates by early adulthood, pathways that elevate lifetime and status. Conversely, low test scores constrain mobility, often perpetuating , though meritocratic policies emphasizing tests can mitigate this by prioritizing over origin. In environments with greater fluidity, such as those reducing parental status inheritance, the of —estimated at 50-80% in adulthood—amplifies their role in outcomes, as selection mechanisms reward high performers regardless of background. Empirical reviews confirm as the strongest single predictor of socioeconomic attainment, outperforming noncognitive traits or effort measures in forecasting transitions from to .

Recent Empirical Developments (Post-2020)

The (NAEP) revealed significant declines in U.S. student performance post-2020, with average math scores for fourth and eighth graders dropping 5 and 9 points, respectively, from 2020 to 2022, and further declines in reading by 3 and 5 points. These drops were most pronounced among lower-performing students, exacerbating achievement gaps by race and , with and students experiencing steeper losses than white students. By 2024, twelfth-grade math and reading scores had fallen to levels below those of 2019 pre-pandemic graduates, correlating with reduced readiness for postsecondary and workforce entry. Internationally, the (PISA) 2022 documented an unprecedented downturn in countries, with average math scores falling 15 points from 2018—equivalent to three-quarters of a year of learning—and similar drops in reading and . In the U.S., math scores declined sharply while reading held steady, but overall proficiency remained below top performers like and , highlighting persistent cross-national disparities tied to cognitive skill development. These trends, observed amid disruptions, underscore causal links between extended closures and learning loss, with empirical models estimating that U.S. students lost 0.2 to 0.5 standard deviations in achievement, disproportionately impacting low-income groups and hindering intergenerational mobility. College admissions tests mirrored these patterns, with the average ACT composite score dipping to 19.4 for the class of 2024 from 19.5 in 2023, reflecting broader score stagnation amid fewer test-takers due to optional policies. Empirical analyses of test-optional shifts post-2020 indicate mixed outcomes: while application volumes rose, submitted scores predicted GPA and persistence more reliably than high school GPA alone, and non-submitters often underperformed peers, suggesting selective disclosure rather than broad equity gains. Studies found no consistent boost to underrepresented minority enrollment from test-optional regimes, with some institutions reporting widened performance gaps in enrolled cohorts, as test scores retained strong validity for identifying high-potential students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Longitudinal data affirm test scores' role in forecasting , with post-2020 research showing standardized assessments predict adult earnings and upward mobility as effectively as family background metrics, even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Declining scores thus signal risks to mobility, as mediate access to high-skill occupations; for instance, a 1 standard deviation increase in test performance correlates with 10-20% higher lifetime earnings, a link unmitigated by policy interventions like test waivers. Widening gaps post-2020, driven by differential recovery rates, imply reduced intergenerational transmission of opportunity unless addressed through evidence-based remediation rather than de-emphasizing tests.

References

  1. https://assess.com/test-score-reliability-validity/
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK305233/
  3. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-can-standardized-tests-predict-adult-success-what-the-research-says/2019/10
  4. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/do-tests-predict-later-success
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5985927/
  6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01027-y
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301904
  8. https://awspntest.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.121
  9. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/passing_scores.pdf
  10. https://heav.org/virginia-homeschool-laws/testing/interpreting-test-scores/
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351550596_The_Meaning_of_Test_Scores
  12. http://alabamaparentcenter.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Special-Education-V.6-Understanding-Test-Scores-1.18.pdf
  13. https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/scores/what-scores-mean
  14. https://www.psychometricsociety.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/mn07.pdf?1576607452
  15. https://www.thoughtco.com/imperial-chinas-civil-service-exam-195112
  16. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-examination-system
  17. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1335/the-civil-service-examinations-of-imperial-china/
  18. https://tophat.com/blog/evolution-of-testing-student-assessment/
  19. https://daily.jstor.org/short-history-standardized-tests/
  20. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/testing/chapter1.pdf
  21. https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581
  22. https://www.edubloxtutor.com/history-iq-test/
  23. https://www.nea.org/professional-excellence/student-engagement/tools-tips/history-standardized-testing-united-states
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6759012/
  25. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/theory/understanding-iq-scores/
  26. https://www.edubloxtutor.com/iq-test-scores/
  27. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-intropsychmaster/chapter/measures-of-intelligence/
  28. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf
  29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10219189/
  31. https://reasonwithoutrestraint.com/the-predictive-validity-of-cognitive-ability/
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228859220_The_predictive_value_of_IQ
  33. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED079344.pdf
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5127298/
  35. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/context/burostestingissues/article/1008/viewcontent/7_BNS_Social___Tech_Chap7_Anastasi.pdf
  36. https://blog.polleverywhere.com/achievement-tests
  37. https://accommodations.collegeboard.org/request-accommodations/provide-documentation/commonly-used-diagnostic-tests/academic-achievement
  38. https://nche.com/helps/testing/list/
  39. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/guides/scores_achv.aspx
  40. https://lesd.k12.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Parents-Guide-to-Understanding-Achievement-Testing.pdf
  41. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/Cut_Scores_Primer.pdf
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9865667/
  43. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED673778.pdf
  44. https://international.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/predictive-validity-sat-higher-education-systems-consortia.pdf
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2017.00045/full
  46. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-an-aptitude-test-2794806
  47. https://study.com/academy/lesson/aptitude-vs-achievement-definition-test-types.html
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128022030000055
  49. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/aptitude-testing
  50. https://dictionary.apa.org/differential-aptitude-tests
  51. https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/differential-aptitude-test
  52. https://research.collegeboard.org/reports/sat-suite/validity
  53. https://careersnews.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/APTITUDE-TEST-EXPLAINED.pdf
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3090148/
  55. https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/64250/The_Prediction_of_College_Achievement_ocr.pdf?sequence=1
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/
  57. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143831X251338027
  58. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-17816-001
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37843546/
  60. https://dictionary.apa.org/raw-score
  61. https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/student-assessment-results/raw-score-conversion-tables
  62. https://professionals.cid.edu/standard-scores-and-raw-scores-and-percentilesoh-my/
  63. https://researchbasics.education.uconn.edu/standardized-scores/
  64. https://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/courses/eds%2520245/handouts/week%252010/descrptive%2520statistics%2520and%2520the%2520normal%2520curve.pdf
  65. https://www.simplypsychology.org/z-score.html
  66. https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/standard-score.php
  67. https://open.maricopa.edu/psy230mm/chapter/chapter-6-z-scores/
  68. https://www.statsdirect.com/help/data_preparation/transform_z_scores.htm
  69. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/Angoff.Scales.Norms.Equiv.Scores.pdf
  70. https://zimmer.fresnostate.edu/~mnogin/math100spring21/Understanding_Test_Scores.pdf
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10638984/
  72. https://www.illuminateed.com/what-are-norm-referenced-assessments-and-why-do-we-use-them/
  73. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/norm-referenced-testing
  74. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/14807_Module6.pdf
  75. https://www.renaissance.com/2017/05/01/blog-the-importance-of-test-norms-and-how-they-work-in-education/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10621686/
  77. https://www.leadersproject.org/2013/03/01/understanding-the-normative-sample/
  78. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/sl-lim-normref.pdf
  79. https://www.nwea.org/blog/2024/norm-vs-criterion-referenced-in-assessment-what-you-need-to-know/
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10498947/
  81. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/criterion-referenced-testing
  82. https://www.americanboard.org/ptk/introduction-to-assessment-part-ii/
  83. https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/norm-vs-criterion-referenced-scoring-advantages-disadvantages.html
  84. https://www.renaissance.com/2018/07/11/blog-criterion-referenced-tests-norm-referenced-tests/
  85. https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/109693-criterion-referenced-assessment-as-a-guide-to-learning-the-importance-of-progression-and-reliability.pdf
  86. https://www.michiganassessmentconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/LP_NORM-CRITERION.pdf
  87. https://teval.jalt.org/sites/default/files/18-1-29%2520Brown%2520Statistics%2520Corner.pdf
  88. https://www.classtime.com/en/norm-referenced-vs-criterion-referenced-assessment
  89. https://www.extramarks.com/blogs/schools/criterion-referenced-assessments/
  90. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/assessment/Documents/2_Type-Purpose_TrainingScript_ODEAssessmentLiteracy_vf.pdf
  91. https://open.byu.edu/Assessment_Basics/qkjqvpnydd
  92. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/sl-criterion-referenced_assessments-language.pdf
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4205511/
  94. https://testing.wisc.edu/Reliability.pdf
  95. https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/sage-encyclopedia-of-educational-research-measurement-evaluation/chpt/test-retest-reliability
  96. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/efficacy/product-evidence/wisc-v.html
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8243205/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8967112/
  99. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1928-01709-001
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606001127
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222868304_Intelligence_and_Socioeconomic_Success_A_Meta-Analytic_Review_of_Longitudinal_Research
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289964222_The_predictive_validity_of_cognitive_ability_tests_A_UK_meta-analysis
  103. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02227/full
  104. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10627197.2015.997614
  105. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R2419-Validity-ACT-Composite-Score-HSGPA-2025-02.pdf
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6220264/
  107. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01967-9
  108. https://www.psypost.org/groundbreaking-study-reveals-the-impact-of-genetics-on-iq-scores-over-time/
  109. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2426531122
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825003853
  111. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
  112. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/testing_for_racial_differences_in_the_mental_ability_of_young_children.pdf
  113. https://gwern.net/doc/iq/ses/1980-jensen-biasinmentaltesting.pdf
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2748987/
  115. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31181398/
  116. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50890445_RacialEthnic_Differences_in_the_Criterion-Related_Validity_of_Cognitive_Ability_Tests_A_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Review
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10143281/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10301777/
  119. https://awspntest.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.90
  120. https://fee.org/articles/the-bell-curve-intelligence-and-class-structure-in-american-life/
  121. https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ARC_Research_June2025.pdf
  122. https://humanvarieties.org/2023/10/01/racial-ethnic-differences-in-the-sat-in-2023/
  123. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sat-math-scores-mirror-and-maintain-racial-inequity/
  124. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-bell-curve.pdf
  125. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-heritability-of-IQ-Devlin-Devlin/c9e7c2477f830a1651ba337fbca2c5f17282e752
  126. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25985137/
  127. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=dlr
  128. https://manhattan.institute/article/does-affirmative-action-lead-to-mismatch
  129. https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=facarticles
  130. https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285
  131. https://sfieducation.s3.amazonaws.com/2022%2BComplexity-GAINs/readings/Sethi_Somanathan_SSRN2021.pdf
  132. https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/key_issues/education_research.pdf
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5679002/
  134. https://edpolicy.umich.edu/research/other-reports/impact-no-child-left-behind-students-teachers-and-schools
  135. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00098655.2025.2507305?src=exp-la
  136. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-023-01148-z
  137. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=nera_2009
  138. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/high-stakes-testing-narrows-the-curriculum
  139. https://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/cc-learning-less-mar12.pdf
  140. https://honors.cns.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/documents/allison_woods-nochildleftbehind.pdf
  141. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0738059321000754
  142. https://engagededucation.substack.com/p/campbells-law-something-every-educator
  143. https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/commentary/trust-verify-real-lessons-campbells-law
  144. https://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/25/what-is-campbells-law/
  145. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20511/w20511.pdf
  146. https://www.rsfjournal.org/content/2/5/220
  147. https://scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1627&context=honors-theses
  148. https://edpolicyinca.org/newsroom/effects-no-child-left-behind-teachers
  149. https://www.idra.org/resource-center/the-dangerous-consequences-of-high-stakes-testing/
  150. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katecassada-1/2023/10/21/k-12-students-face-an-alphabet-soup-of-standardized-tests-what-purpose-do-they-serve/
  151. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/case-standardized-testing
  152. https://epaa.asu.edu/index.php/epaa/article/download/8734/3531/41962
  153. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1372848.pdf
  154. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09645292.2025.2487504?af=R
  155. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33389/w33389.pdf
  156. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1318846.pdf
  157. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221546.2023.2187177
  158. https://www.science.org/content/article/wave-graduate-programs-drop-gre-application-requirement
  159. https://fairtest.org/gre/
  160. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-006
  161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879186900138
  162. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6795315/
  163. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED343958.pdf
  164. https://itcertcouncil.org/certifications-scoring-and-scaling-oh-my/
  165. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444534293000089
  166. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00028312211060855
  167. https://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11346812/
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356291/
  170. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X22000537
  171. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rev3.70066
  172. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/do-impacts-on-test-scores-even-matter-lessons-from-long-run-outcomes-in-school-choice-research/
  173. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19345747.2023.2175753
  174. https://scholarworks.uttyler.edu/context/education_grad/article/1006/viewcontent/Impact_of_Response_to_Intervention_on_Achievement.pdf
  175. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200622000655
  176. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10691898.2018.1483785
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3248886/
  178. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289605000656
  179. https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/coll_mrc_qje_paper.pdf
  180. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272721002061
  181. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1912998116
  182. https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income
  183. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38
  184. https://www.educationnext.org/student-test-scores-keep-falling-whats-really-to-blame-naep-performance-decline/
  185. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/09/09/naep-scores-12th-grade-math-reading-declines/
  186. https://www.the74million.org/article/covid-worsened-long-decline-in-12th-graders-reading-math-skills/
  187. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en.html
  188. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/12/oecd-pisa-results-maths-reading-skills-education/
  189. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2022/
  190. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/worsening-2022-pisa-tests-results-oecd/
  191. https://www.k12dive.com/news/act-sat-scores-decline-assessment-college-admissions/730096/
  192. https://upward-mobility.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Upward-Mobility-Predictor-Assessments_2025.pdf
  193. https://www.future-ed.org/research-notes-the-impact-of-test-optional-policies-on-college-admissions-and-enrollment/
  194. https://journals.flvc.org/jpss/article/view/135721/141718
  195. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12649
  196. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/2d1daca1-2210-4bab-9acb-67254d25e583-MECA.pdf?abstractid=5556607&mirid=1
  197. https://www.aei.org/education/what-the-latest-round-of-pisa-scores-shows-about-how-the-pandemic-affected-the-achievement-gap/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.