Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admissions tests and post-secondary academic performance?

Critics of educational admissions tests assert that tests measure nothing more than socioeconomic status (SES) and that their apparent validity in predicting academic performance is an artifact of SES. The authors examined multiple large data sets containing data on admissions and related tests, SES, and grades showing that (a) SES is related to test scores (r = .42 among the population of SAT takers), (b) test scores are predictive of academic performance, and (c) statistically controlling for SES reduces the estimated test?grade correlation from r = .47 to r = .44. Thus, the vast majority of the test?academic performance relationship was independent of SES: The authors concluded that the test?grade relationship is not an artifact of common influences of SES on both test scores and grades. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Academic Performance, Career Potential, Creativity, and Job Performance: Can One Construct Predict Them All?

This meta-analysis addresses the question of whether 1 general cognitive ability measure developed for predicting academic performance is valid for predicting performance in both educational and work domains. The validity of the Miller Analogies Test (MAT; W. S. Miller, 1960) for predicting 18 academic and work-related criteria was examined. MAT correlations with other cognitive tests (e.g., Raven's Matrices [J. C. Raven, 1965]; Graduate Record Examinations) also were meta-analyzed. The results indicate that the abilities measured by the MAT are shared with other cognitive ability instruments and that these abilities are generalizably valid predictors of academic and vocational criteria, as well as evaluations of career potential and creativity. These findings contradict the notion that intelligence at work is wholly different from intelligence at school, extending the voluminous literature that supports the broad importance of general cognitive ability (g). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Amplitude- and frequency-dependent changes in neuronal regularity parallel changes in tremor With thalamic deep brain stimulation.

The mechanisms by which deep brain stimulation (DBS) alleviates tremor remain unclear, but successful treatment can be achieved with properly selected frequency and amplitude. The clinical tremor response to thalamic DBS for essential tremor is dependent on the stimulation frequency and amplitude, and for high frequencies (> or = 90 Hz), increasing amplitude suppressed tremor, whereas for low frequencies (< 60 Hz), increasing amplitude aggravated tremor. We studied the effects of stimulation frequency and amplitude on the output of a population of intrinsically active model neurons to test the hypothesis that regularization of neuronal firing patterns is responsible for the clinical effectiveness of DBS. The firing patterns of model thalamocortical neurons were dependent on stimulation frequency and amplitude in a manner similar to the clinical tremor response. Above a critical frequency, increasing amplitude reduced the coefficient of variation (CV) of the neuronal firing pattern, whereas for low frequencies, increasing the amplitude increased the CV of neuronal activity. The correlation between the changes in tremor and the changes in the CV of neuronal firing supports the hypothesis that regularization of neuronal firing pattern during DBS is one of the mechanisms underlying the suppression of tremor.     

Validity of the Graduate Record Examination: Estimated or tacitly known?

Comments on the article by R. J. Sternberg and W. M. Williams (see record 1997-04591-002) regarding the empirical validity of the Graduate Record Examination in predicting graduate student performance in psychology. It is argued that although Sternberg and Williams addressed an important topic, they purposely did not use what are now widely accepted procedures for estimating predictive validities. Their failure to use appropriate parameter estimation techniques produced inaccurate results and misleading conclusions. Key errors made included (1) the failure to take range restriction into account, (2) failure to take criterion unreliability into account, and (3) reanalysis. It is concluded that these methodological flaws should not be duplicated by others, as it would represent a step backward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Selective citation mars conclusions about test validity and predictive bias.

Comments on the article by Vasquez and Jones (see record 2006-01690-003), in which they put forward the argument that standardized tests do not evaluate much of anything worthwhile and do not assess merit. The current authors argue that Vasquez and Jones support their argument only through highly selective citations from the literature, and they discuss Vasquez and Jones' evidence for both predictive validity and predictive bias in educational and employment settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance.

This meta-analysis examined the validity of the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) as predictors of graduate school performance. The study included samples from multiple disciplines, considered different criterion measures, and corrected for statistical artifacts. Data from 1,753 independent samples were included in the meta-analysis, yielding 6,589 correlations for 8 different criteria and 82,659 graduate students. The results indicated that the GRE and UGPA are generalizably valid predictors of graduate grade point average, 1st-year graduate grade point average, comprehensive examination scores, publication citation counts, and faculty ratings. GRE correlations with degree attainment and research productivity were consistently positive; however, some lower 90% credibility intervals included 0. Subject Tests tended to be better predictors than the Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytical tests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Application patterns when applicants know the odds: Implications for selection research and practice.

Unlike previous research that found small differences between population standard deviations and applicant pool standard deviations (P. R. Sackett & D. J. Ostgaard, 1994; D. S. Ones & C. Viswesvaran, 2003), this study revealed a 23% disparity between Law School Admission Test (LSAT) scores of all LSAT test takers and those of LSAT test takers who applied to law school. This study also illustrated robust applicant self-selection behavior across different law school ranks. These findings are important, because predictor scores of applicants who know their scores in advance and perceive small selection ratios necessitate substantially smaller range restriction corrections than those that would be required by population standard deviations. Furthermore, these findings more generally reveal that applicants who know their scores in advance behave quite differently from applicants who do not. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)