Psychology > Counseling Psychology > Personality Assessment > Academic Achievement

Academic Achievement
An achievement test is any test designed to assess an individual’s attainment of a
specific knowledge or skill in a specified content area within which the individual has
received some level of instruction or training. However, achievement tests are often
confused with aptitude tests. Aptitude tests may not differ in form from achievement
tests, but they typically differ in both use and interpretation. Aptitude tests are typically
designed to estimate an individual’s future performance on a task and/or his or her
aptitude to develop new skills or knowledge if provided instruction or training.
Essentially, achievement tests assess current performance after specific training;
aptitude tests assess the potential for future performance.
For more than 100 years, achievement and aptitude testing have steadily gained
momentum and support from psychologists, educators, policymakers, and the general
public. Recent laws at both federal and state levels clearly demonstrate the emerging
importance of achievement and aptitude testing in a data-driven political system.
However, regardless of such apparent support, considerable confusion remains about
the nature, use, and appropriate interpretation of achievement tests.
Aptitude Testing
Because achievement and aptitude tests are frequently used in combination with one
another, a brief discussion of aptitude tests is warranted. The Sixteenth Mental
Measurements Yearbook (MMY) groups aptitude and ability tests into a single
classification (i.e., Intelligence and Scholastic Aptitude) that includes measures of
general or specific knowledge and aptitudes or cognitive abilities. As mentioned,
aptitude tests are essentially measurements of an individual’s performance on a
selected task or tasks, which are then used to predict that same individual’s future
performance. They can assist external parties in predicting performance in selection
processes, and help individuals gain a better understanding of their abilities in making
life decisions (e.g., career or educational choices). The MMY includes a plethora of
assessments under this category, including those of verbal and nonverbal reasoning;
critical, abstract, and creative thinking; cognitive and mental abilities (including
traditional intelligence tests); memory aptitudes; and learning aptitude, potential, and
efficiency.
The predictions made from aptitude test results are not always limited to tasks or
situations that are similar to those initially measured. In fact, some aptitude tests focus
on predicting seemingly unconnected tasks and skills, while others are used to predict
future performance in entirely different situations. For instance, high school students
interested in particular careers might be given aptitude tests to measure their aptitudes
for those careers. The students’ test results can then be used to help advise them about
available academic or training programs beyond high school (rather than simply
whether they should actually pursue the specified careers).
Aptitude tests can also vary in the number of aptitudes measured by a single
instrument. Multiaptitude batteries are aptitude tests that measure a broad array of
ability areas (e.g., verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, and mechanical reasoning)
during a single administration. These batteries are used primarily for intellectual,
educational, and vocational assessment, and they are well suited to show individuals’
relative strengths and weaknesses. For that reason, multiaptitude batteries are
generally more useful in career and academic counseling than are single-aptitude
assessments.
One of the more common multiaptitude batteries is the Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which was first developed in 1966 and is now on forms 23
and 24. Most, if not all, new recruits to the U.S. Armed Forces take the ASVAB. It
measures aptitudes for general academic areas and career areas that are involved in
most civilian and military careers. Scores from the eight subtests can be used to locate
possible career options in OCCU-FIND—a manual listing more than 400 occupations,
including about 150 military careers.
Although multiaptitude batteries are more useful than single-aptitude tests in certain
circumstances, there are also instances in which more specialized aptitude tests are
preferable. For instance, broad-based multiaptitude tests such as the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS) can predict a variety of cognitive and mental aptitudes.
However, they do not measure all possible cognitive abilities, and they do not
necessarily provide the most accurate predictions of future performance in specialized
tasks, such as mechanics, art, and music. In fact, the MMY provides a classification of
specialized assessment instruments (e.g., fine arts, mathematics, reading, science, and
social studies) and lists both aptitude and ability tests within each group. The following
examples provide some indication of the broad array of specialized aptitude tests
available to psychologists:
 The Mechanical Aptitude Test is a 45-minute test that measures high school students’
and adults’ mechanical abilities, such as comprehension of mechanical tasks, use of
tools and materials, and matching tools with operations.
 The O’Connor Finger Dexterity Test assesses psychomotor aptitudes (i.e., ability to
perform bodily movements), and it is used to predict how well a person would be able to
perform certain motor tasks in various situations (e.g., working on a rapid assembly,
performing watch repair).
 The Meier Art Tests are examples of specialized assessments for artistic aptitude.
Among these tests is one for Aesthetic Perception. This test presents an examinee with
four versions of the same artistic work that differ along an important aesthetic
dimension (e.g., proportion or form). The individual ranks the works in order of merit, and
 the results can be used to predict the individual’s future success in tasks involving these
aesthetic concepts.
 The Seashore Measures of Musical Talents is a 60-minute assessment of musical
aptitude. The assessment battery includes a listening test with six subtests measuring
dimensions of auditory discrimination (e.g., pitch, loudness, rhythm, and tonal memory).
Hybrid Testing
Admissions tests are some of the most commonly used assessments within the realm
of aptitude and achievement tests, yet they are also the most difficult to define
according to traditional definitions. Confusion can arise when applying the standard
definition of either achievement or aptitude tests to scholastic assessments, because
scholastic ability/aptitude tests combine the predictive goals of aptitude tests with the
performance assessment goals of achievement tests. As such, it is not uncommon for
classification systems to place admissions tests into a hybrid category.
The SAT is one of the three most common admissions tests, and a prime example of
such confusion about whether admission tests are achievement or aptitude tests.
Originally introduced in 1901, the SAT is now taken by over 2 million students annually
and is accepted by nearly every American college and university as the entrance
examination component of the admissions process. The debate about the purpose and
usefulness of the SAT led to several changes in its name throughout the 20th century.
The SAT was first introduced as the “Scholastic Achievement Test,” renamed the
“Scholastic Aptitude Test” in 1941, and became the “Scholastic Assessment Test” in
1990. Following the 1994 revision, and continuing with the most recent 2005 revision,
“SAT” is no longer an acronym. The test is presently known as the “SAT Reasoning
Test.”
The other widely used hybrid tests are the ACT and Graduate Records Examination
(GRE). Similar to the SAT, the “American College Test” was renamed “ACT” in 1996.
Most American colleges and universities use the ACT and GRE, respectively, to make
decisions about the admission of applicants to undergraduate and graduate programs
of study.
Achievement Testing
Although hybrid tests incorporate elements of achievement tests, more traditionally
defined achievements tests are clearly differentiated from aptitude and ability tests. The
focus of achievement tests on measuring acquired knowledge makes them the primary
type of instrument used in educational programs at all levels. Although this essential
element is consistent across achievement tests, these tests can be further categorized
using several nonexclusive characteristics.
Standardized Versus Nonstandardized Achievement Tests
One characteristic that can be used to distinguish among achievement tests is whether
the test has been standardized. Standardized achievement tests are those that have
been administered, revised, and tested to establish an average level of performance.
Standardization allows an individual’s test results to be compared to those of other test
takers. Because the individual’s achievement is compared to that of a reference group,
scores on standardized achievements tests are generally indicated by a percentile rank.
Scores may also be indicated using grade-level equivalency (e.g., an eighth-grade
student scores a 10 on a standardized achievement test, indicating that she scored as
well as the average tenth-grade student).
Although standardized tests are generally considered more robust and valid measures
of achievement, the majority of achievement tests used in educational settings are
nonstandardized. Such nonstandardized tests include exams, tests, and other instances
where the intent is to simply indicate how much an individual learned, without
referencing a specific performance standard established by a reference group. Toward
this end, nonstandardized tests essentially assess individual achievement as a
proportion of the maximum potential level of achievement, as defined by the trainer,
educator, or external test developer. Nonstandardized tests can be scored more
subjectively (e.g., essay tests and short answer tests) or more objectively (e.g., multiple
choice and matching tests), but the ultimate score will always be a proportion of the
total potential achievement. Typically, scores are reported as pass or fail, a percentage
of the total possible score (e.g., 93% out of possible 100%), a letter grade (e.g., A, B), or
a number grade (e.g., 17 out of 32).
Norm-Referenced Versus Criterion-Referenced Achievement Tests
As mentioned above, standardized achievement tests require referencing an individual’s
performance to an established standard level of performance. There are two methods
for establishing these standardized performance levels: norm referencing (also known
as nomathetic and standards referencing) and criterion referencing (also known as
idiographic and domain referencing). Norm-referenced achievement tests compare
each individual’s achievement to the achievement of others taking the same measure.
As such, achievement level is based on the average performance of the norm group,
rather than on the actual percentage of correct answers. In order to enhance such
comparison of individual scores to the norm group, norm-referenced tests are typically
created to mimic the normal curve. Individuals are then provided a scaled score or
percentile rank according to the normal curve. Some of the most common norm-
referenced tests are the California Achievement Test (CAT), Comprehensive Test of
Basic Skills (CTBS), and Tests of Academic Proficiency (TAP).
There are several criticisms of norm-referenced achievement tests. For instance,
because norm-referenced achievement tests are designed for national or international
use, there is a possibility that the content being tested is not covered by the education
or training actually provided to the individual. When this difficulty becomes salient,
instructors sometimes change the material they teach, which leads to the criticism that
some instructors are “teaching to the test.” In addition to content, critics note that the
norms of many achievement tests are too old to measure achievement according to
current standards and/or teaching methods. Furthermore, the norms may be too limited
to provide meaningful normative comparisons for all demographic groups, specifically
those of culture or ethnicity. There are also arguments that such assessments may
sacrifice accuracy or breadth in order to ensure that examinees’ scores conform to a
normal distribution. In addition, a mathematical property of the normal curve is that
changes in the number of correct answers do not lead to the same change in the
percentile rank for all individuals. These arguments have led major test makers to
address criticisms through redesign and/or renorming of their achievement tests, and
to emphasize that norm-referenced achievement tests should not be the sole basis for
making critical decisions about students’ retention or graduation.
Although most achievement tests are norm referenced, their limitations have led to the
continued use of criterion-referenced tests in certain situations. Criterion-referenced
tests compare each individual’s performance to a predetermined standard or criterion
level, rather than a norm group. They focus on mastery of a given objective or skill, and
typically include many items measuring a single objective. Because criterion-referenced
tests are scored against an absolute standard, usually the percentage of correct
answers, criterion-referenced tests are more common in the daily assessment of
individuals in educational settings. Unlike norm-referenced achievement tests that force
individuals into a normal curve, criterion-referenced tests do not limit the number of
examinees that can demonstrate outstanding performance and mastery.
In an effort to draw upon the strengths of both norm-referenced and criterion-referenced
tests, some achievement tests incorporate both standardization procedures. Scores on
such tests are reported in terms of both how the examinees compare to others and how
well they mastered the assessed content. For instance, the TerraNova (also known as
the California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition or CAT/6) indicates both a student’s
grade equivalency and that student’s level of mastery.
Individually Versus Group-Administered Tests
The majority of achievement tests can be administered to a group of individuals. This is
particularly useful in educational settings where thousands of students might take the
same instrument within a similar time frame. However, information such as behavioral
observations can be obtained only during an individual test administration.
Individualized achievement assessment is particularly useful for assessing the
vocational rehabilitation of adults and learning disabilities of children and adolescents.
There are several individually-administered achievement tests, as well as many that can
be administered either to individuals or to groups.
Survey Achievement Batteries
Achievement tests also vary in terms of the number of achievement domains being
assessed. Survey achievement batteries, which assess a broad array of areas, are the
most widely used format. The survey achievement battery typically has a number of
subject-based subtests. They are most commonly used to assess achievement in the
areas emphasized in K-12 education, thereby providing educators with information
about student achievement across the educational curriculum with a single
administration. One of the most popular of the survey achievement batteries is the Iowa
Test of Basic Skills, designed for students in kindergarten through Grade 8. This battery
assesses achievement in areas such as vocabulary, reading comprehension, language,
mathematics, spelling, science, maps and diagrams, and reference materials.
Examples of Achievement Tests
While there are hundreds of achievement tests, the following provide examples of the
more frequently administered instruments:
 The Woodcock-Johnson® III (WJ III) is a widely used comprehensive system (i.e., hybrid
battery) for measuring general intellectual ability (or g), specific cognitive abilities,
scholastic aptitude, oral language, and academic achievement. These variables are
measured through two distinct batteries: The WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and the
WJ III Tests of Achievement. The WJ III can be administered to any individual over the
age of 2. Because of its breadth and its assessment of achievement, the WJ III is often
used to diagnose learning disabilities, guide educational programs, assess growth, and
identify discrepancies between an individual’s levels of aptitude and achievement.
 The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test— Second Edition (WIAT-II), is a test of
reading and mathematics achievement that is suitable for individuals age 4 and older.
The WIAT-II evaluates both the correctness of the response and the process by which
the examinee arrived at the response, thus allowing for a more accurate assessment of
problem-solving skills than other achievement measures. The WIAT-II is also conormed
with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), which is the
most commonly used test of intellectual and cognitive functioning for children.
 The Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT4) is designed to assess individuals
between the ages of 5 and 75. The WRAT4 assesses the achievement of reading,
spelling, and arithmetic skills.
 The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (K-TEA II) provides a
broad assessment of academic achievement. It can be administered in a longer (five-
subtest) comprehensive form or a brief (three-subtest) screening form to students in
first through twelfth grade. Both the comprehensive and brief versions provide an
assessment of key academic skills in reading, mathematics, written language, and oral
language
https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/counseling-psychology/personality-
assessment/academic-achievement-assessment/