Test Disclosure and Retest Performance on the SAT

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of disclosing a Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) form on the retest performance of examinees who initially took the disclosed form and subsequently took a different form. Retest performance was compared for three ran dom samples of examinees who took the SAT as high school juniors in the May 1981 administration in New York and then retook it in the October 1981 adminis tration : two experimental groups that were sent the standard set of disclosed material for the May SAT, along with either a noncommittal or an encouraging letter intended to vary their motivation to use the ma terial, and a control group that was not sent anything. The three groups were generally similar in the level and retest reliability of their October scores, indicating that access to the disclosed material had no apprecia ble effects on retest performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anastasi, A. (1981). Diverse effects of training on tests of academic intelligence, In E. F. Green (Ed.), Issues in testing: Coaching, disclosure, and ethnic bias (pp. 5-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bond, L. (1981). Bias in mental tests. In B. F. Green (Ed.), Issues in testing: Coaching, disclosure, and ethnic bias (pp. 55-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, R. (1980). Searching for the truth about "truth in testing" legislation. Denver CO: Education Commission of the States .

Conrad, L. , Trismen, D. , & Miller, R. (Eds.). (1977). Graduate Record Examinations technical manual. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Donlon, T.F. , & Angoff, W.H. (1971). The Scholastic Aptitude Test. In W. H. Angoff (Ed.), The College Board Admissions Testing Program: A technical report on research and development activities relating to the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests (pp. 15-47). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Educational Testing Service. (1979). Taking the SAT. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Educational Testing Service. (1950). 4 SATS. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Educational Testing Service. (1981a). ATP guide for high schools and colleges 1981-82. New York : College Entrance Examination Board.

Educational Testing Service. (1981b). TOEFL test and score manual, 1981 edition. Princeton NJ : Educational Testing Service.

10.

Hale, G.A. , Angelis, P.J. , & Thibodeau, L.A. (in press). Effects of test disclosure on performance in the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language Learning .

11.

Linn, R.L. (1982). Admissions testing on trial. American Psychologist, 37, 279-291.

12.

Messick, S. (1980). The effectiveness of coaching for the SAT: Review and reanalysis of research from the fifties to the FTC . Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

13.

Messick, S. (1981). The controversy over coaching: Issues of effectiveness and equity. In B. F. Green (Ed.), Issues in testing: Coaching, disclosure, and ethnic bias (pp. 21-53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Messick, S. , & Jungeblut, A. (1981). Time and method in coaching for the SAT. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 191-216.

15.

Olsen, M. , & Schrader, W.B. (1959). The use of preliminary and final Scholastic Aptitude Test scores in predicting college grades (ETS SR 59-19). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

16.

Powers, D.E. , & Swinton, S.S. (in press). Effects of self-study for coachable test items. Journal of Educational Psychology.

17.

Snedecor, G.W. , & Cochran, W.G. (1967). Statistical methods (6th ed.). Ames IA: Iowa State University .

18.

Strenio, A., Jr. (1979). The debate over open versus secure testing: A critical review (National Consortium on Testing Staff Circular No. 6). Cambridge MA: Huron Institute.

19.

Test-takers may ask for and get answers to SAT's next year, College Board decides. (1981, April 6). Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1, 10.