This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS FOR SUBGROUPS OF GRE TEST TAKERS
GRE Board Professional ETS Research
GREB No. 82-6bP 86-40
This report presents the findings of a research project funded by and carried out under the auspices of the Graduate Record Examinations Board.
Test Preparation for the GRE Analytical Ability Measure: Differential Effects for Subgroups of GRE Test Takers
Donald E. Powers
GRE Board Professional
1986 by Educational Testing All rights reserved.
no particular subgroupappeared to benefit significantly more or significantly less than any other subgroup. ethnicity.) Data from this study were reanalyzed for evidence of differential effects for subgroupsof examinees classified by age. English language dominance. The results suggested little. (Two susceptible item types were subsequently removedfrom the test. difference amongsubgroups of examineeswith respect to their response to the particular kind of test preparation considered in the study. degree aspiration. if any. . 1984) revealed practically and statistically significant effects of test familiarization on analytical test scores. and performance on other sections of the GFU3 General Test. Within the limits of the data.Abstract A previous study of the initial version of the GREanalytical ability measure (Powers & Swinton.
1979) detected several interaction effects at one of the two schools studied. Oriental/Asian.Test Preparation for the GREAnalytical Ability Measure: Differential Effects for Subgroupsof GRETest Takers The question of who can profit most from special test preparation has received very little attention (Cole. in which larger numbersof minority examineescould be identified. However. This latter result led to the speculation that examineeswith below-average financial meansmight have especially In a reanalysis of strong motivation to perform well on the test. another data set. collected by Alderman and Powers (1980) in a randomized study of high school verbal test preparation programs. Messick (1980) found little evidence for the differential effectiveness of test preparation for the eight specially prepared Black students that were identified. according to whether or not they were enrolled in mathematics courses. 1982) despite concerns that those who may benefit most are those who can least afford to purchase effective preparation. when differences in ability (as measuredby earlier scores on the same test) were controlled statistically. the effect of using each of five methodsof preparation was small. This is true despite speculation that such variables as motivation and previous test-taking experience may moderate the effectiveness of test preparation. Specifically. he observed the opposite pattern for female students. In a study of the Graduate Management Admission Test &MAT). a reanalysis by Messick (1980) of data collected for the Federal Trade Commission'sstudy of commercial coaching schools (Federal Trade Commission. there has apparently been very little concern about possible interactions between examinees characteristics or experiences and their responses to various kinds of special test preparation. A few studies. nearly all related to the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). have provided someinformation regarding possible differential effects of test preparation for particular subgroupsof test takers. Cronbachand Snow. In a study conducted at two secondary schools for boys. French (1955) found a similar pattern of effects for male students. The effect on verbal scores was also greater for test takers who reported low family incomesthan for those whose parental incomeswere higher. However. The effect of coaching on SATmathematical scores was greater for students who were not taking mathematics than for those who were. not . 1977). that is. More recently. Dyer (1953) noted an interaction between coaching and enrollment in mathematics courses. for example. Compared with the longstanding search for how student characteristics relate to responses to various educational interventions (see. and White). Leary and Wightman(1983) suggested that the effects associated with various kinds of test preparation varied somewhat across four ethnic subgroups (Black. coaching was more effective for females who were studying mathematics than for those whowere not. the effect of coaching on SATverbal scores was significantly greater for a very small group of Black test takers (N = 13) than for non-Black examinees. and for most methods. Spanish.
The subsequent analytical scores of these students were about 66 points higher than those of a comparison group. Swinton and Powers (1983) developed a brief program (about seven contact hours) of special preparation for the analytical section and administered it to a small group of students who were planning to take the GRE Aptitude (now General) Test. analytical measure was shown to be clearly susceptible to improvement through preparation.. and (c) the practically and statistically significant effect on test scores (i. according to examinee reports. the 53-point effect that was observed for the treatment group getting the most extensive preparation). the investigators correctly pointed out that the nonexperimental nature of the study resulted in an inevitable confounding of examinee characteristics with methods of preparation.000 examinees). explanations of correct answers to questions. might be susceptible to improvement through special test preparation. experimental GFIEanalytical measure. The key features of the data base that made reanalysis attractive were (a) the randomized nature of the study. the previously collected data provided a vehicle for assessing subgroup effects for a particular Because the initial version of the GRE kind of test preparation. which was introduced in the 1977-78 testing year. Over the past several years the GRE Program has sponsored a number of studies designed to establish the degree to which performance on the initial.-2statistically significant. in various sets. Subsequently. to random samples of GRE test registrants in order to learn whether or not GRE test takers might benefit as much from independent study as from instructor-based test preparation. and treatment utilization were available for more than 3. (b) the sizes of the samples employed (complete data on test scores. background data. The objective of the study reported here was to determine. . 1984) was more effective for some examinees than for others. 1984) “ packaged” this effective program and mailed its components. it seemed possible that differential effects would be more likely for this test than for other.e. Although the GRE General Test was revised after the study so that it no longer contains the two test item types that were found to be susceptible to special test preparation. whether the highly effective test preparation that was offered in the previous experimental study of the initial version of the GRE analytical ability measure (Powers & Swintonl 1982. This advantage was achieved. Examinees who had received and were encouraged to use the complete set of preparation materials (practice tests. and suggested strategies for approaching each analytical test item type) showed a 53-point advantage over examinees who did not receive any materials. with an average of about four hours of preparation. Powers and Swinton (1982. through further analysis of data. less susceptible tests. Moreover.
Briefly. test takers. The major findings of the study. More complete details about procedures and the materials used can be found in Powersand Swinton (1982). which are given in greater detail elsewhere (Powers & Swinton. Other Hispanic.in the form of a Thus. 1984). including those comprising the control group. about five weeks before the test date. their meanGREanalytical ability scores. Four different combinations of materials were assembledand sent to samples of examinees. were given extra encouragement. which is provided to all GREtest takers. and degree aspiration) that examinees provide when registering to take the test. Black. and the average time spent using the preparation materials for each subgroup. master's) might be related to motivation to perform well on the test (4 (d) Ethnicity (Native American. Several specific subgroupclassifications were chosen for analysis for the following reasons: (a) Age was thought to be a good proxy for recency of test-taking experience prior to taking the GRE b) Primary language (English or other) might be related to facility with English language tests Degree aspiration (doctorate vs. Chicano or Mexican American. ethnicity. primary language. Oriental. the data for this study were from an experimental study of the effects of several combinations of special test preparation materials on GREanalytical ability scores.-3- Procedures The Data Base As stated above. Data Analysis The major variables used in the study reported here were (a) GRE analytical ability scores. through self-study. The materials included full-length sample analytical tests. total of 10 distinct treatment conditions were employedin the study. age. Table 1 gives the numbers of examinees. and (c) examinee self-reports of the amountof time they devoted to using the special test-preparation materials they received. or Other) might be related to previous test-taking experience . White. (b) backgrounddata (in particular. were that the special preparation was highly effective and that the effects were very strongly related to the amountof time devoted to using the materials. A control group received only the GRE Information Bulletin. to become more familiar with the analytical ability section of the test.000) were mailed various combinations of test-preparation materials for the analytical ability portion of These materials were designed to enable prospective the test. to prepare for the test. a strongly worded persuasive letter. Puerto Rican. randomsamples of GREtest takers (a total of more than 6. Half of the test takers in each group. explanations of all questions and hints for approaching each of the three types of analytical questions.
which was coded as a set of n . This variable was of interest here because of the FTC study conclusion that coaching can be effective for examinees who do not do well (or who. Effects of treatments on test preparation time. All categorical variables were coded 0 or 1. except for ethnicity. in particular. A first question of interest was “ Did the treatment (in particular. . and primary language) were added to the regression equation and the increase in the multiple car I -elation computed to determine if some subgroups of examine& tended to prepare more for the test than did others. for some analyses. has been criticized as being too strong (Messick.1 variables and subgroup n = 0. GRE analytical ability scores were regressed on the combination of treatment characteristics and examinee background variables. and the significance of the increase in the multiple correlation was tested. “ underachieve” ) on standardized tests. 0 on these variables. ethnicity. etc. 0. 0 on the n . degree aspi rations. a set of product variables was added to the regression to reflect the interaction among treatment The increase characteristics and examinee background characteristics. 0. in the terminology Because of the FTC study. encouragement to prepare) have any differential effects on the amount of time devot :ed to preparing the analytical portion of the test?” To answer this question. . An additional subgroup classification of interest was the degree to which examinees tend to perform better or worse on standardized admissions tests than might be expected from other information. a set of variables was then added to reflect interactions between treatment characteristics and background characteristics. Nex t. time spent preparing (as self-reported by test takers) was regressed on the set of variables indicating treatment characteristi cst i. . background variables (age. . In order to assess possible differential effects of test preparation on subgroup performance. Again. receipt of additional practi ce tests. . encouragement. indications of previous achievement.1 variables (where n is the number of ethnic categories) of the form: subgroup 1 = 1. test-taker characteristics were confounded with the kind of coaching school attended (and because different schools were observed to be differentially effective). samples were judged to be sufficiently large only for Black examinees. in the multiple correlation was then tested for significance to determine if any treatment features seemed to be related differentially to the time that particular subgroups of examinees spent on test preparation. although qualified in the FTC report. . . since this was the only minority subgroup for which examinees were found in each cell of the design.-4- Insert Table 1 About here With respect to ethnicity. this conclusion. Effects on test scores. . 1980).e. Finally..
1984. including encouragement.ed tests. including encouragement to prepare.8. This alternative analysis was undertaken because. F (4. which focused only on the analytical portion of the test. The use of GRE verbal and quantitative scores for this purpose is justified because. and the significance of its contribution to the increase in prediction was determined as an indication of the extent to which test preparation was more effective for some subgroups than for others. 3274 ) = 10. This statistically significant increase. no increase in the multiple R was noted. was more or less instrumental in promoting test preparation for some subgroups than for others. within each treatment group. was related significantly to the amount of reported preparation for the analytical section.17 to . A variable indicating subgroup membership was also included in the regression. Results Effects of Treatments on Test Preparation Time The combination of variables indicating the presence or absence of each of four treatment features. When interaction terms (treatment characteristics by subgroups) were added next. p < l OOl. p < . an interaction variable (subgroup membership by mean test preparation time) was added.24. degree aspiration. the mean GRE analytical score was regressed on the mean preparation time over the 10 treatment conditions. and primary language) were added. doctoral degree seekers reported significantly more preparation time (These effects than did younger examinees or master’ s degree seekers. R = . the degree to which GRE examinees were “ underachievers” on standardized tests was defined separately on the basis of both GRE verbal and GRE quantitative scores. nor did they (see Powers & Swinton.17.-5Operationally.4. test preparation time was related negatively to GRE scores. confirmed differences among subgroups (as can be seen in Table 1) in the amount of time they devoted to preparing Older (over 30 years old) examinees and for the GRE analytical test.) Black examinees also reported more time preparing than did Flhite examinees in each of the 10 treatment groups. When examinee background variables (ethnicity. Next. 3284) = 23. were consistent for each of two forms of the test. Residuals were formed by regressing verbal (or quantitative) scores on undergraduate major area and self-reported undergraduate grade average in the major field. thus providing no evidence that any particular treatment feature. F (10. The difference between the actual and the predicted score was used as an indication of an individual’ s degree of facility with standardiz. as a result of the special test preparation. . age.OOl. although obtained at the same time as GRE analytical ability scores. of several subgroups. Average test preparation time For each was therefore treated as a characteristic of each treatment. the multiple R increased from . they were not expected to increase. A second set of analyses was conducted using test score means and mean test preparation times for each treatment group and for the subgroup classifications of interest. for details).
89. or about as expected on the verbal (or quantitative) section of the test. 3273) = 55.45 to R. Ken the appropriate set of subgroupby-treatment interaction variables was added to this combination. .84.63. and primary language) was significant R = . F (15. --------------- Insert Figures l-6 About Here when subgroups were defined according to whether they performed better.OOl. degree aspiration. respectively.67 and .71 for doctoral degree aspirants and Black test takers to .45 did not increase when interaction variables were added to reflect age. and 11 (or 19) points for those who performed better than expected. and stemmed primarily from a significantly lower effect of time spent on test scores for Oriental examinees. age. an hour of analytical test preparation time translated to about 25 (or 23) points for those who performed worse than expected from their undergraduate records. Generally.87. F (35. on average. the multiple R increased significantly only for ethnicity. Figures l-6 show the relationships between the mean GRE analytical scores and the mean preparation time for each of the examinee subgroups of interest. p < . the relationship between average time spent preparing and average GRE analytical score was strong for each subqroup.45. and . primary language.92.6. from R = . . and test takers whose primary language was English. Thus we are reluctant to focus on-this result. these apparent differentials were not significant. an additional hour of preparation time translated to an averaqe GRE analytical score increase of about 30 score points for most subgroups. or expectations for either verbal or quantitative test performance. . 3238) = 1. An examination of regression weights showed that. p < . t (3238) = -4. p < . A more detailed analysis revealed that this small increase resulted on only one of the two test forms that were used. The multiple R of .OOl. younger examinees (30 years old or younger). 28 (or 27) points for those who performed about as expected. white test takers.92. . worse. Correlations ranqed from . The relationship was weak (R = .12) only for those examinees who reported that English was not their primary language. degree aspiration. Analysis based on subqroup means across treatment conditions. master’ s degree aspirants.-6Effects on Test Scores The individual as the unit of analysis. Although these weights suggested the possibility of somewhat greater effects for Black test takers (about 46 points per hour) and somewhat lower effects for doctoral aspirants (21~points) and examinees for whom English was a second language (4 points).. for older (greater than 30 years old) examinees.05. The prediction of GRE analytical scores from the combination of treatment features and examinee background characteristics (ethnicity.13.47.
F (1. which considered here.58. who were not previously differentiated according to background characteristics. and the best estimate for each subgroup of the effect of an hour of preparation for the analytical test is in the range of 25-35 points on the 200-800 GRE analytical score scale. was developed for the initial version of the GRE analytical measure. A reanalysis was undertaken here of experimental data in which a practically and statistically significant effect of test preparation had been found for a large sample of GRE test takers. The majority of studies of special test preparation have been unable to address this hypothesis adequately because of (a) the relatively small numbers of test takers from subgroups of interest and (b) the failure to demonstrate unequivocally the presence of any practically and This statistically significant effect for test takers in general. any statistical confidence that the relationship for this subgroup of examinees differed significantly from that for test takers whose . this increase was not to the prediction equation.-7- No significant interactions were detected for any of the groupings based on either demographic characteristics or expectations For each classification.40 to . the effects of the test preparation. Discussion Speculation has been advanced concerning the possibility that coaching or other forms of special test preparation may be differentially beneficial for some kinds of test takers. however. prediction of average GRE analytical from average time preparing and English fluency. second shortcoming has resulted largely from the inability to conduct true experimental studies of the effects of test preparation. thus leaving self-selection as a plausible rival hypothesis. that we were unable to say with analytical scores.Ol. p > . examinees the time spent in test preparation was not predictive of GRE (We note. Alternative data analyses did not reveal any consistently and significant interaction effects for any of the examinee subgroups In fact. and none was statistically significant. a separate estimate of treatment effect for any of the subgroups considered here was not warranted. The largest increase in the multiple R (from . (a) average time spent preparing for the test and (b) subgroup membership were highly predictive of average analytical score over the Multiple R’ ranged from a low of . Thus. No other statistically significant.40 for the s treatment conditions.05. The only hint of a possible differential effect was for the small number of For these test takers whose primary language was not English.85 to . 16) = 0. were remarkably uniform over various subgroups of examinees. and from .43) occurred when the interaction term (English fluency x average time) was added However. multiple R increased by more than .99 for other classifications. variables indicating of test performance.
as noted previously. In their comprehensive review they found that regression slopes (treatment effects) were more likely to differ from treatment to treatment for general abilities than for any other aptitude considered in the aptitude-treatment literature. we found no convincing evidence that low-scoring test takers may benefit more than high scorers from test preparation. perhaps. may achieve greater benefits from effective test preparation than their less able counterparts. when offered the same relevant pre-examination experience of the particular kind considered here. In short. .-8- primary language was English. This suggests. no significant differential effects were noted. On the other. This latter result contrasts sharply with what Cronbach and Snow (1977) have characterized as the I’ . we might speculate that test takers whose primary language is not English might benefit less from this kind of test preparation than test takers whose primary language is English. When examinees were grouped according to their verbal and quantitative test performances. In this regard. they also provide some indication of the extent to which general scholastic abilities may moderate (or. that the skills needed to benefit from test preparation may not be the same as the more relevant academic abilities reflected in the test scores. we found even less evidence that more able test takers. The low test scoring groups considered in this study benefited as much from a certain kind of test preparation as did their higherscoring counterparts. fail to moderate) the effectiveness of test preparation. . various subgroups. power of general abilities . they may suggest the desirability in any future studies of classifying examinees according to whether or not English is the primary language. Because these adjusted verbal and quantitative performances were highly related to the unadjusted scores. [such as those measured by scholastic aptitude tests] to predict success in learning” (p. after first adjusting for previous grades and major field of study. On the other hand. our results suggest that.) Because the test preparation involved the self-study of a relatively substantial amount of verbal material. those who succeed in early intellectual endeavors tend to have developed the skills and abilities that will serve them well in subsequent undertakings. in this case. as defined by their verbal and quantitative scores. however. it may be informative to consider test preparation as an educational intervention in the context of the aptitude-treatment interaction literature. Although the results do not warrant a conclusion of this nature. even those that differ radically with respect to initial test scores. 498). Because standardized ability tests such as the GRE General Test reflect the variety of academic experiences that examinees bring with them. it is not surprising that unequal academic preparation contributes to between-group test score differences. can achieve similar improvements in test scores. On one hand. We did not find any evidence to support the possibility that test preparation may pay greater dividends for test takers who score lower on standardized admission tests than would be expected from records of previous achievement.
" The significance of any test score improvements undoubtedly varies. lest between-group test score differences increase. and other test preparation resources that are becomingincreasingly available from test publishers and from other commercial sources. score improvementsmay be more significant for examineeswhose test scores place them at the "margins of admissibility. As Messick (1981) has suggested. practice tests. the results were based on a no-longer-used version of the GREanalytical ability measure that contained item types shownto be extremely susceptible to test preparation. Nonetheless. however. with such factors as the quality of the applicant pool and the selectivity of the graduate department. for example. as noted above. we note the limitations of the study. that on the initial version of the GREanalytical measure (which. It is not knownto what extent these results may apply to other tests or to other test-taking populations that are less experienced with standardized tests than are most GRE test takers. We might speculate. Nor is it knownwhether subgroupsof test takers might benefit in different ways from test preparation other than the kind that involves self-study and practice.-9- The significance of equal test score improvementby initially unequal subgroupsmight best be considered from a normative perspective. . has since been revised by removing the two item types that were susceptible to test preparation) a test score improvementof 30 points for an average-scoring Black examinee (from 358 to 388 in our sample) might result in a greater increase in the probability of gaining admission than would a 30-point improvementfor a typical White examinee (from 524 to 554). the results do seemto reinforce the importance of encouraging all test takers to utilize the information bulletins. Finally. First.
75(l). D. The effectiveness of coaching for the SAT: Review and reanalysis of research from the fifties to the FTC. The effects of self-study of test familiarization materials for the analytical section of the GREAptitude Test (GREBoard Research Report GREB No. Estimating the relationship between use of test-preparation methodsand scores on the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAC Research Report 83-1.). (1955). S. S. S. NJ: Educational Testing Service. 104-115. Leary. 2... Consequences. Journal of Educational Psychology.. H. Effects of special preparation on SAT-verbal scores. coachable test item types. The controversy over coaching: Issues of effectiveness and equity.) Princeton. Sections). Dyer. J. Does coaching help? College Board Review. E. F. Powers. L. Princeton. S. E. E. J. Green (Ed. American Educational Research Journal.). NJ: Educational Testing Service. and ethnic bias. A study of the effects of special preparation on GREanalytical scores and item types. & Powers. S. D.and Controversies (Part II: Documentation Press. 79-9). S.. Messick. W. 331-335. D. (1982). (1983). ETS Research Report RR-83-22. (1983). New York: Irvington Publishers. & Snow. 19. S. Messick. In A. & Powers. (1977). (1953). (1980). Issues in testing: Coaching. French. & Swinton. DC: Federal Trade Commission. (1979). Wigdor and W. E. Washington.. F. The implications of coaching for ability testing. Garner (Eds.-lOReferences Alderman. disclosure. 239-251. (1980). Effects of self-study for Journal of Educational Psychology. & Swinton. & Wightman. (1984). Princeton. Effects of coaching on standardized admission examinations: Revised statistical analysis of data gathered by the Boston Regional Office of the Federal Trade Commission. L. R. DC: National Academy Cronbach. The coachability of the SAT in public schools (ETS RB 55-26). Swinton. In B. N. NJ: Educational Testing Service. (1981). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Washington. E. (1982). L. 21-53. Ability Testing: Uses. 266-278. D. E. 76(2). Aptitudes and instructional methods. Cole. . Princeton. Powers. NJ: Educational Testing Service. S. D. L. Fede ral Trade Commission.. R. S.
-llAcknowledgments The author would like to thank the Research Committee of the. Maria Pennock-Roman. Graduate Record Examinations Board for sponsoring this research. and Lorraine Simon for preparing the manuscript. and Warren Willingham for helpful reviews of an earlier draft of this report. Robert Boldt. Linda Wightman. Robert Altman. . Richard Harrison for programming the analyses.
Negro M SD N M SD N 358 110 26 524 110 506 2.81 1.18 2.00 2.50 551 2.53 2.29 288 299 3.39 197 550 130 91 2.36 487 174 570 110 4.59 2.90 Times for Examinee Subgroups by Treatment Group Encouraged 3 GRE-A Time 4 GRE-A Time 0 0 GRE-A Time 1 GRE-A Time 2 GRE-A Time GRE-A Time 1 GRE-A Time 2 GRE-A Time GRE-.71 109 2.69 176 2.26 220 4.11 116 2.18 93 Doctorate or Postdoctorate 3.95 2.15 2.23 204 577 102 94 3.27 2.24 2.74 14 543 3.30 224 501 3.98 2.77 410 78 2.46 544 2.38 386 107 23 4.22 276 583 3.17 3.34 2.61 426 125 568 104 3.19 2.45 2.25 227 532 116 86 4.74 358 114 17 551 2.92 361 3. Afro-American.46 108 279 2.33 211 563 109 93 3.05 118 2.33 550 I.34 4.90 10 446 133 8 554 3.50 2.93 2.34 267 3.33 558 3.24 107 240 509 557 3.21 103 278 30 or M SD N M SD N 525 112 432 473 124 142 2.28 3.66 117 2.66 113 2.40 2.63 538 2.39 540 3.71 2.Table 1 Mean GRE Analytical Scores and Mean Test Preparation Not Encouraged Group Self Description Black.04 2.44 2.26 2.69 549 116 212 499 120 76 2.54 17 3.26 208 4.66 2.81 2.23 307 English Primary Language 535 3.49 102 513 2.86 2.03 2.47 444 142 16 4.36 98 565 112 579 3.18 110 2.41 564 106 2.90 2.91 2.00 2.91 2.38 555 2.37 555 113 237 502 130 81 2.28 121 2.36 2.26 2.40 3.27 350 89 21 559 2.43 541 113 2.96 2.48 563' 3.35 3.50 2.26 228 521 130 76 3.34 3.41 2.82 2.38 556 3.22 .47 538 3.05 112 2.67 532 118 12 3.25 529 112 218 2.50 4.60 2.38 118 280 3.43 71 583 3.35 498 77 2.69 553 121 209 542 109 69 3.47 3.37 2.32 2.27 121 2.74 2.49 373 118 15 544 114 264 2.11 571 129 2.55 2.05 112 2.89 108 2.39 526 2.24 118 312 3.13 2.78 2.54 108 2. Time 4 GRE-A Time 2.76 2.24 Degree Objective Master's or Intermediate M SD N M SD N 504 114 398 531 2.29 267 372 102 14 568 106 248 3.59 2.74 2.87 458 118 10 2.40 529 2.55 1.95 121 2.59 2.36 186 576 110 92 3.32 270 545 119 308 4.95 2.96 118 2.36 113 294 .26 100 569 114 114 English Fluency English Secondary Language M SD N M SD N 432 125 14 514 117 560 2.33 117 2.28 547 113 3.88 2.97 123 2.26 235 544 104 4.39 286 2.55 2.10 2.77 432 114 8 2.20 132 2.33 252 3.90 2.34 542 125 215 510 115 79 2.24 2.31 266 437 116 19 4.32 3.84 3.71 3. IQ Older than 30 116 74 2.25 2.40 2.19 2.76 476 126 5.34 192 548 3.52 459 138 8 2.87 536 122 2.23 222 572 124 94 3.89 2.29 137 76 3.
98 2.13 2.96 2.29 562 86 147 3.37 551 101 170 3.06 Test Performance Worse than (Quantit expected M SD N 411 107 152 516 104 304 596 88 154 2.91 2.53 2.85 2.57 425 107 64 2.27 553 96 133 3.56 2.95 2.28 638 76 73 3.49 536 102 168 2.66 2.50 2.29 625 91 79 2.65 2.09 626 78 97 3.46 564 97 152 2.01 2.25 614 92 78 3.44 2.36 M SD N 629 87 76 2.54 2.57 2.72 2.43 547 116 92 3.) of answers to materials listed sample test is includedin GRE test .27 429 107 86 3.67 2.19 556 98 162 3.40 2.61 2.45 2.57 620 86 95 2.43 2.14 447 121 96 562 95 173 630 75 68 2.06 2.41 449 110 105 2.57 420 115 60 3.87 2.87 2.49 2.31 633 82 83 3.17 2.95 2.34 546 85.11 2.86 1.37 632 95 75 2.75 2.40 444 115 83 3.25 2.49 403 108 153 2.98 2.10 2.66 2.97 2.94 2.Not 0 Group Test Performance Worse than (Verbal) expected M SD N About as expected M SD N Better than expected 516 95 306 605 87 151 2.0 155 612 93 83 2.45 476 107 83 4.39 435 100 77 2.48 554 95 194 3.29 2.29 3.65 2.12 2.51 About as expected M SD N 2.58 2.58 427 108 88 2. test test (This (This full-length full-length 1 = Explanations of 2 = A second sample 3 = Explanations 4 = All of the sample test is included in the the GRE test information information that that all all test test takers takers get.65 2.69 428 114 61 2.40 637 88 83 3. analytical analytical and 3 above.94 2.42 GRR-A Time 1 GRE-A Time Encouraged 2 GRE-A 3 GRE-A Time 4 GRE-A Time 0 GRE-A Time 1 GRR-A Time Encouraged 2 GRE-A Time 3 GRB-A Time 4 GRE-A Time 439 108 77 540 105 164 2.43 548 106 165 632 76 69 2.45 Better than expected M SD N 3.61 2.69 2.25 2.71 2.21 3.19 444 110 80 3.83 2.41 449 106 85 3.48 446 111 84 3.) get.32 549 100 169 3.66 2.27 2.64 410 112 82 3.43 543 97 154 2.58 2.28 633 87 82 3.38 2.86 2.49 2.51 2.52 533 105 146 2.46 2.27 565 95 142 3.41 627 86 78 3.22 2.19 431 119 71 3.41 574 93 166 3.41 2.39 2.30 2.12 2.31 642 80 83 4.31 474 118 83 3.76 2.33 619 91 77 2.92 Materials 0 None : answers analytical to one test one In sample sample 1.29 2.10 625 81 80 2.28 576 99 166 3.67 2.01 635 78 93 3.42 2.34 556 95 171 3. 2.
I X 300 2. .‘ 0 0 Hours of 3. 1 Enc. Blacks-NO Wh i tes-Enc.‘ 0 5 Average 3.‘ 0 5 Preparation 58’ 0 0 . Whites-Not Enc.‘ 0 0 Test 4.-14- to Average 650 I- Relationship Time Spent of in Fi gure ZL Average GRE Analytical Prrparat i on by Black and Score White Examiners I- X IJ 0 + b Blacks-Enc.‘ 0 5 Analytical 4.
50 Ana. I 1 I + I X ’ I 2. 00 4.Lyt ical Older Older 1 300 I I 4. 50 Average I 3. -1 Enc.-J_5- Relationship to Average b50 of Time Figure Average Spent 2 GRE Analytkal in Preparation by Score Age b00 I I 350 a o 30 30 or or Younger-Enc. 50 Test Preparation . 00 Enc. Younger-Not Than Than 30-Enc. 30-Not 1 5. 00 Hours of I 3.
-16- to 650 Relationship Average Time of Spent Figure Avrrage in Preparat 3 GRE Analytical i an by Ilegree Scclre Object i vs! b00 zl $450 1 d P a400 k (3 350 0 Master's Master's or or Intermed-Eno Intermed-Not Enc 0 I + I X 2.158 3.'50 Preparation 5.'00 Average Hours .'00 Test Doctorate Doctorate or or PostDoc-Enc PostDoc-Not En I 300 4.'00 38'50 of Analytical 4.
-17- to 650 Relationshi Average Time of %pant Fi gura 4 Average GRE in Preparat Analytical i on by Engl Score i sh Fluency 600 : 0 .00 Test Preparation 5. 50 3. 50 5. 50 . 50 4. Pr imary Eng..lL x X t X X t I 1 0 Eng.450 Y A 4 2 Q 400 : U 350 + + .Pr imary Lang-Enc Lang-Not Lang-Em Lang-Not Enc 7 Enc--) I 0 I t I X 2. Secondary Eng.00 Average Hours of Analytical Eng. 550 1 4 . Secondary I 300 4. 500 4 3 . 00 3.
-18- Relationship in Preparati b50- Figure GRE Analytical of Av on by I! xpeetat i ens 5 for Score Verbal to Avg Time Spent Test Performance 600. 00 . bO 2.40 3. 40 4. 20 3. 20 2.00 4. t s * X Better Better About About Worse Worse Than Than Expected-Em Expected-Not Em P 0 as Expected-Enc as Expected-Not Than Than Expected-Em Expected-Not em 1 Em A 350- + I 300- X 2. 20 4. b0 4. 00 3. b0 3.00 3. 40 2.80 Average Hours of Analytical Test Preparation 5. 80 4.
450 h 4 2 Q 400 : c3 350 1 300 2. 50 Preparation 5. 50 Average 3‘ 0 0 Hours of 3.00 Test 4. 500 4 3 .00 S $ v Better Better Than Than as as Expected-Em Expected-Not Enc I Enc I Enc 1 I 0 About About Worse Worse Expected-Enc Expected-Not Expected-Em Expected-Not 0 + x Than Than . 50 Analytical 4.-19- in Relationship Prrparat b50 i on of Avg GRE by Expectations Figure Analytical for 6 Scora Quant i tat to Avg Time Sp+nt i ve Test Pw-formanca 600 E 8 v) 550 s 4 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.