Post on 17-Jul-2020
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 084 362 CE 000 502
AUTHOR Joaelyn, Edwin Gary, Comp.; Perry, Dallis E.TITLE hinnesota Test -Boras and Expectancy Tables. Revised
Edition.INSTITUTION Minnesota State Dept. of Education, St. Paul.5PON5 AGENCY Office of Education (DHEM), Washington, D.C.PUB DATE 71NOTE 302p.; 1961 edition revised 197 1
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
MF-0.65 HC-$13.16*Achievement Tests; *Aptitude Tests; *Counseling;*Expectancy Tables; Norm Referenced Tests;Occupational Tests; Paw Scores; Student Testing;*Tables (Data); Testing; Test Interpretation; TestReliability; Test Results; Tests; Test Selection;Test Validity
ABSTPACTThe volume of test-norms and expectancy tables is
intended as a tool for counselors in counseling individuals. The workcontains a chapter on test interpretation to assi -t the counselor inrelating individual test scores to other information about theindividual. In the Minnesota Norms section of the tables, there areno data at the elementary level. At the secondary level there are twotypes of tests: scholastic aptitude (Lorye- Thorndike, andDifferential Aptitude), and achievement (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills;Stanford Achievement, both advanced battery and high school battery;Iowa Tests of Educational Development; and the Minnesota EnglishTest). Tests for post-high school include Minnesota ScholasticAptituae, High School Percentile Rank by type of Minnesota College,and General Aptitude Test Battery by Training Groups. There areexpectancy tables for the various campuses and colleges of the Univ.of Minnesota and other Minnesota colleges grouped according to thecategories: Private Liberal Arts Colleges, State Colleges, and JuniorColleges. Finally, there are two interest tests results: StrongVocational Interest Blank and Minnesota Vocational InterestInventory. (AG)
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY
(-%
.J0Pr\ MINNESOTA TEST-NORMS
CO andCD
EXPECTANCY TABLESU. I
U S DE PARTME NT OF NEAT TNEDUCATION& WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCAtiON
T*4S 0o(us.I NT "As 1 I (,mg( (I A( IL v A. ,v1 b ITF of USW. 04 OUGAN,/n1,0n1rNC.,1 POik, IS 01 LrEA 04 01,N,C)..tSTATED DO NOT ssAu., v gel nutSENT 01, c rAL NA 1.OSA1 5ST, 1I 01EDUCATION Poso Dy ot, poi rf
CompiledBy
Edwin Gary Joselyn
With A ChapterBy
Dallis K. Perry
The Minnesota Guidance Publications edited by :G. Dean MillerJules H. Kerlan
Reynold M. Erickson
The publication was made possible with funds made available tinder provisionsof the Elementary and Secondary Ad of 1905, Title 111 and the VocationalEdountion Ad of 1903, as amended 1968,
Developed in Cooperationwith
115.Pupil Personnel Services Section
and
14)Division of Vocational-Technical Education
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1971
4Nit1,11
come,,14
FOREWORD
The purpose of this loose-leaf publication, Minne-sota Test-Norms and Expectancy Tables, is to providecounselors working in all settings with test resultsthat should be useful in counseling with individuals.However, the value of any individual's test score de-pends upon the manner in which it is used. A singletest scow used in isolation could prove harmful tosome students and in such eases students would bedone a disservice. Test results must be consideredtogether with all other information about studentsto be helpful in the development of their vocational-educational plans. Dr. Dallis Perty's chapter on testinterpretation was written especially to assist thecounselor to take all these factors into considerationin the utilization of test data for individun:s.
The booklet is loose-leaf so that it may be kept cur-rent by adding new test information as it is developed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publi is a revised and expanded version of the ratherdiluin. Published in 19(i1 with later supplements which were dis'
tribute(' to the schools and related zigencirs.
Tin nonnative data and expectancy tables wen made possiblethrough the cooperation and support of the Minnesota Association ofColleges, Minnesota State-Wide Testing Programs, and the NlinnesotaResearch Coordination Unit in Occupational Education. The latterunit, sponsored by the Division of Vocational-Technical Education,Minnesota Department of Education and the University of Minnesota,Provided the nonnative data on the General Aptitude Test Battery1GATB) and the Nlinnesota Vocational Interest Inventory (\WU).
Individuals singled out for their contributic.! include Dr. Garylosclyn, Minnesota State-Wide Testing Programs, who compiled andedited the entire publication; Dr. Dallis Perry, Assistant Director,Student Counseling Bureau, University of Minnesota, Minneapoliswho wrote the chapter on test interpretation; Dr. David Pucel andDr. Howard Nelson of the Minnesota Research Coordination Unit inOccupational Education for data from project NMI-SCORE trainingnorms, and the Student Counseling Bureau's Technical Divisionstaff who prepared the many tables and figures.
iii
The members of the Ad floc Committee on Testing of The PupilPersonnel Services Section, State 1)epartinent of Education, partici-pated in planning the content and orgaiiiiation o1 this revision. Thouassistance is gratefully acknowledged.
Members of the Committer:
1)r. Paul Ingell. Chilli mailProfessor 1)1 PsychologySt. Cloud State College. St. Cloud
14. Boger Nl. Adams, DirectorPersonni ServicesNVayzata Public Schools NV;I /,11.1
Hobert J. (:asanova. Principal1)e La Salle High School, Minneapolis
Dooald ( :lanson. 1)ireutorCurriculum DevelopmentState 1)cpartinent Of Education. St. Pa-il
1)r. E. Cary Josclyn, Editor. andSchool Testing Consultant
State-NN'ide Testing Programs
Uniursit:)f\il1;s(i.Julius Kerlin, ConsultantPupil Porsonel ServicesState 1)epartment of Education. St. Roil
Dr. Gerald Niece, DirectorElementary EducationState 1)epartment of Education, St. Paul
1)r. Gerald Thompson, CounselorSt. Lout; Park Senior High School, St. Louis Park
Pupil Personnel ServicesMinnesota Department of Education
iv
CONTENTS
hnrwoAcknowIckrinents iiicontents
Interpreting Standardized Test Scotus, Oaths K. PerryMinnesota Norms Section
Elementary Level ( untie aVailabh
het tHRIAry
SchalSik Aphilld( T.'stSLorge-hmmlike Intelligence Test
Grade 7 :31
Grade 8 32(;rade 9
Diflerential Aptitude TestGrille S
\ tales .35
Females :37
Grade 9NIales 39Females
Grade 10tales -13
Females -15
Achievement TestsIowa Tests of Basic Skills 9
Grade 7 50Grade S 5.1
Stanford Achievement Tests. Advanced Battery 63Grade 7 64Grade S 66
Iowa Tests of Educational Development 69Grade 9 71Grade 10 7.7Grade 11 7:3Grade 12 74
Stanford Achievement Test. High School BatteryGrade 9 76Grade 10 SOGrade 11 84Grade 12 88
Minnesota English Test 93
1 est s lor Post-High SchoolMinnesota Scholastic Aptitude Tests 04
All juniors Entering College Freshment official Norms
Norms by type of Minnesota College
fligh School Percentile Bank by type of MinnesotaCollege 100
General Aptitude Test Battery 101
Training GroupsCluster
Air Conditioning, Refrigeration. andAppliance Repair 107
Aircraft Nlechanics 110Agri-Technology 113Architotnral Drafting 116Autoinoti:es 110I >lest.] Mchanies 122Electronics 125Carpentry 12'Farm Equipment NIechanics 1:31
Fluid Power Technology 134Machine Shop 137Mechanical Drafting and Design 1.10
Plumbing and Sheet Metal 143Power and ,Home Electricity 146Printing an4 Graphic Arts 140Welding 152
Cluster IIAccounting 155Chefs ;aid Cooks 15`iCleriVal Training 161Cosrhetology 164Datia Processing 167Dental Assistant 170Inxerior Design and Sales Assistant 17SMedical Lab Assistant 176Practical Nursing 179Sales 182Secretarial Training 185
Expectancy Tables . 188University of Minnesota
College of AgrienIture, Forestry, andHome Economics 189
vi
(:allege (PI Liberal Arts 190College of Education 191
Institute of Technology 192
General College 19:3
Dental Hygiene 19.1
1)ultith 195!orris 196
C:rookston 197
PH' Ate Liberal Arts Colleges
Augsburg College 199Bethel College 199Carleton College .100
Coucoidia CollegeMoorhead 201
Cone ordia CollegeSt. Paul 20: .
Dr. Martin Luther College . 203Gustavus Adolphus College 20-1
Hamline University 90511acalster College 20(;
College of St. Benedict 207College of St. Catherine 207St. John's UniversitySt. Mary's CollegeWinona . 20SSt. Olaf College 209St. Paul Bible College 210College of St. Scholastica 210College of St. Thomas 211
State CollegesBemidji State College 212Mankato State College 213Moorhead State College 214St. Cloud State College 215Winona State College 216
Junior CollegesAnoka-Ramsey 217Austin. 21SBrainerd 219Fergus Falls 220Hibbing 221Itasca 92)Lakewood ................. 223Mesabi 224Metropolitan 225Normandale 226North Hennepin .. 227
vii
Not thland 1.1sRochester 1,19
Vermillion 2:10
211\Vorthington 2:32Bethany Lutheran 111(:orbett College 213Crosier Seminar. 23.1Golden \'alley Lutheran 1:35St, Mary'sMinneapolis 1:36
Interest TestsStrong Vocational Interest Blank :37Minnesota Vocational Interest Inventory 210
Training GroupsCluster I
Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, andAppliance Repair 212
Aircraft Mechanics 2SSAgri-TechnologyArchitectural Drafting 256AntomotivesDiesel Mechanics 270Electronics 1-16Carpentry 251)
Farm Equipment Nlechanics 20.1Fluid Power Technology 266Machine Shop 17-1
Mechanical Drafting and Design :14-1
Plumbing and Sheet Metal.. 16-1
Power and Home Electricity 186Printing and Graphic ArtsWelding 2H)
Cluster IIAccounting 278Chefs and Cooks 25SClerical TrainingCosmetology
15:731:;
Data Processing 290Dental AssistantInterior Design and Sales.Assistant 294Medical Lab Assistant 292Practical NursingSales . . 282Secretarial Training 276
vii:
INTERPRETING STANDARDIZED TEST SCORESDallis K. Perry
Uses of Tests
Standardized tests .ire used to assist in making a wide %ariet nleducational decisions :
Which students should be selected for Special Program A?
What educational and vocational plans are reasonable fnr Student 13?
For what level of instruction in mathematics is Student C read?
I las Class I) made the expected progress in science?
!low successful is the new social studies curriculum in School E?
Test scores provide just one of many kinds of information that mustbe evaluated and integrated to answer these questions. The was inwhich such information is used in educational administration, instruc-tion, and guidance is the subject of such disciplines as educationalevaluation, teaching methodology, and counseling and is beyond thescope of this discussion; but, before we use test results in any waY,we must understand what information is contained in the test scoreswhat it is they do and do not tell us.
Cronbach's (1970) definition of a test as systeina.ie procedurefor observing a person's behavior and describing it with the aid of anumerical scale or category system" is perhaps as satisfactory as any.The tests with which we are concerned are standardized testsstandardized both with respect to the presentation of the stimuli( items) that elicit the behavior that is observed and with respect tothe reference data by which the numerical results are interpreted. Thescore that results directly from a test operation is ordinarily an arbi-trary and quite meaningless figure. A considerable portion of t,sttechnology is concerned with Procedures for transforming such "raw.'scores to scales that "build ill" significance through their relation toone or more kinds of reference information. Two general classes oftransformed scores are "norm-referenced" scores. which indicate rela-tive standing in comparison with a specified reference group. and"criterion-referenced" scores, which relate test performance to thekind of behavior exhibited by, or expected from, the examinee. Under-lying the interpretation of both kinds of scores are the concepts ofvalidity and accuracy of measurement and the assumption that thetests have been presented to students in a standard manner. Thefollowing sections discuss test administration circumstances and theconcepts of measurement accuracy, validity, norm-reference, andcriterion-reference as they influence the interpretation of standardizedtest scores.
Test Administrationrtiiidanitilial Iu .1 %Enid:adj./x(1 test is the rtinivaleilve of test
«irk tt from one student to aother. which akes possil I.1.e comparisons,,,crs. it is essential that this standardization not 1w eomponnsol
in lucial instructions. assistance, or failures in test security that Ind%lic( tively alter the content in unknown ways for some students.restiog conditions cannot, Of course. he identical for all examinees,hut they should be comparable in every way possible. Because mostedit( ational tests are regarded as measures of 11,\iluull ltri"t/miflit*.each student must have an opportunity to do his best. Saiph% yital conditions of lighting, heating, ventilation. s.ler;1 %%;,,y'ssoda( es are assumed, :Is well as rigid adherence to specil i el -
tions and time limits. Equally important, and much nice, ;i,11;t
to control, are the internal conditions that each student 'ori:e4s -.0 thetest. If a test score is to represent maximum performanc Ili effortand therefore the motivation to do well on the test mi.-- u, compar-able to that expected in the situations to which the test is related.Test manuals and administration directions give Mt]e pt ion to pre-test preparation and instruction of examinees. A r rplanation ofthe purpose and significance of the tests, without , Iiug to exhorta-tion. is preferable to presentation of the tests as kinired bm unex-plained task. Motivaium cannot be completely staodardized, of course.and the counselor or teacher with specific knowlechte of each studentas well as of the testing situation can best judge whether a given testscore should he accepted at face value. regarded with extra caution,or disregarded completely because of the circumstances in which itwas obtained.
Accuracy of Measurement
No single test score is completely representative of the "universe"of behavior for a person. A test score is based on a sample of behavior.and scores based on different samples can be expected to vary. Inter-pretation of the score must take into account the amount of suchvariation to be expected under given circumstances, This variation isusually expressed as "error of measurement", considered to be thedifference between the observed score and a hypothetical "true" scoreconsisting of the mean of a very large number of measurements ofthe same kind on the same person.
Standard Error of MeasurementThe standard deviation of the distribution of measurements on a
person, of which the person's true score is the mean (or equivalentlythe standard deviation of the differences between true and observedscores), is called the standard error of measurement (s.e.m.) for thatperson. Although the s.e.m. on a test varies from one person to an-
2
otlita. in prat tit( the aerate saran. 1)%ci a sample of persons is deter-mined 15 ;III tStiltlab 1,1 the 5.1'111. Oil the test for rich person.
1 he s.e.111. Of ICS( indicates the to Which :t SCOW,:
ublaillt'd by l'tprilied IltrAS1111'111VIA Of the same kind would varyaround the person's true score. It inay be pictured IS ShOWil ill Fig. 1.Within the IIR of r 1 s.e.nl front a persons true score will fall (i8e,7(of his obtained scores, and frir:, will fall within 2 s.e.m. If the s,ea,is ;3, for example, the probability is 6''j that ally observed score iswithin 3 points of the True score.
S. r n Joan: Lnlinu
1
SC011, hint, 1111,,tt 1Viet:Stift, 14 OncIttl t::::
c1
1'.!tlir L St1110.0,1 C'llt ',Hid ill 1,14 jot,
si .W1011111,11
The s.e.m. of a test is important becaus it emphasizes that anobserved test score is just an estimate and not a precisely determinednumber, and at the same time it quantifies the dependability of thescore. Test scores are sometimes reported as ranges or bands, typicallyextending 1 s.c.m. above and below the observed score, with or with-out the observed score indicated. Although the interpretation of suchranges is difficult to specify precisely in probability terms, they havethe advantage of emphasizing to users the limits of score depend-ability.
In evaluating scores on a test with reference to its s.e.m.. twopoints should be considered:
1. The reported s.c.m. is an estimate of the average s.c.m. for allpersons who take the test. Individuals differ in their variability as wellas hi their true scores, so the actual s.e.m. is not the same for allpersons. The s.c.m. of a well-constructed test should not be correlatedwith test scores, but in practice persons near the extremes of a dis-tribution are less likely to be measured accurately than those nearthe middle. This situation may arise, for example, if the test has in-sufficient "ceiling" so that differencs!s among the more able studentscannot be detected, or if it is so difficult for some students that theyrespond randomly or by excessive guessing.
2. l)illerent Incamimes used to estimate the s.e.m. of a test ascribedifferent sources of observed score variance to error. It is importantto keep in mind the sonrees of variance represented in the s.e.m.. and.therefore. the generalizahilit of the score. Internal consistency pro-cedures kuder-Ilichardson formulas. split-half. odd-eN en) or alter-nate form correlations generally include as error that variance due tosampling of test content and that (Inc to momenta, y factors thatdifferentially influence performance during a single testing occasion.Factors that would differentially affect scores on another occasion areascribed to "true" score valiance. Betesting at a different time withthe same instrument leads to the inclusion of differences due to testingoccasions. but not differences due to «intent sampling, in the errorvariance estimate.
Reliability CoefficientsAs Fig. 1 implies. the error ariance ordinarily is much smaller
than the total variance on a If it were not if all the variancewere error variance there would be no true score variance and thetest would have no value. Interpretation of the s.e.m. of a test dependsin part on how much smaller than total score variance it is. An s.e.m.of 3 has quite different significance for a test with a standard deviationof 4 than for a test with a standard deviation of 10. variame if agroup of test scores is composed of the error variance plus the tritescore variance, or
S' = S: S'observed true error
The relationship of these variances is usnally expressed as the ratioof true score variance to total score Variance, called the reliabilitycoefficient,
r
Because true score variance, and therefore total observed variance,is a function of the heterogeneity of the group being measured, areliability coefficient reflects both group and test characteristics,whereas the error component of scores on a test, (s.e.m. squared) isregarded as a characteristic of the test, fixed for all groups. In inter-pretation of an individual test score the s.e.m. most directly indicatesthe confidence that can be placed in the score, but the stability of thescore with respect to an entire group of scores, as indicated by thereliability coefficient, also should be known. Given the standarddeviation of the group in question one can, from (1) and (2) above.compute either s.e.m. or r from the other according to the familiarformulas
S.N./ 1 (3)4
r 1 (4)
Internal consistency reliability of the Nlinnesota Scholastic Apti-tude Test ( NISAT) was found to be .93 ( Layton, no date), whichindicates, according to formulas (3) and (4), a s.e.m. about one-fourthas large ( .07 = .26) as the standard deviation of 13.5, or about:3.7. Referring to the MSAT norm table we find that, if, for examplea student's "true" score is at the 71st percentile ( RS = 44), about two-thirds of the time in repeated testing his observed 11SAT score worldbe Iwtwern the 63rd and 79th percentiles. Ile would obtain a scorebelow the alth percentile less than 3% of the time.
Validity
The most critical information underlying the interpretation of testscores is how well the scores measure the characteristic dn. test is
being used to measure, i.e. how valid is the test for the purpose towhich it is being put. Because a test may be used for many purposes.it may have many validities and even several different kinds of validity,Different kinds of validity are generally classified into three categories:content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity.
Content ValidityWhen a test is used to determine a person's current knowledge or
performance in a domain represented by the test, evidence of howwell the test actually represents the domain i3 required to establishthe content validity of the test. Such evidence usually takes the formof an analysis of the domain into subdivisions, description of the sub-divisions, and identification of the items related to each subdivision.In educational achievement tests such subdivisions usually correspondto educational objectives. It is important that both subject mattercontent and process be included in the analysis and description of thetest.
Establishment of a test's content validity requires demonstrationn 1t only of what the test does measure but also of what it does notmeasure. Extraneous factors that ark: measured by a test but are notconceptually a part of its content lower its content validity. Two ofthe most common such influences are reading skill and working speed,because so many achievement tests are composed of written items andare given with time limits.
The careful analysis and description of the measurement domainwhich characterize the establishment of content validity distinguish itfrom "face validity", which refers to the superficial appearance, oreven name, of a test. Motivation may be better if test items appear to
5
examinees to be relevant to the purposes of testing; therefore, facevalidity may be desirable, but it is not the same as content validity.
Criterion-related ValidityWhen a test is used to predict a specific kind of performance other
than that measured by the test itself, evidence is required that thetest scores are indeed related to the other, criterion, performance. Suchevidence is most commonly presented in the form of a coefficient ofcorrelation between test and criterion scores.
Clearly, a test has as many validities as criteria. Thus the mediancorrelation of MSAT scores with grades of freshmen in Minnesotacolleges is .43, which demonstrates its validity as a measure of schol-astic aptitude; but the coefficients in individual colleges vary from.10 to .76.
Adequate evidence of criterion-related validity requires not only avalidity coefficient of sufficient size to be useful but also a criterionmeasure that truly represents the behavior or performance to be pre-dicted. School marks or grades are the most commonly used educa-tional criteria, and tests validated against such measures must be usedwith awareness of the limited scope of relevant behavior representedin the criterion. Nevertheless, because grades do represent a significantaspect of achievement and one that may be critical in determiningcontinuation and completion of an educational program, correlation oftest scores with grades is an important and meaningful indication ofvalidity.
Construct Validity
Criterion-related validity is invaluable for use of a test to aid inreaching a decision, e.g., choice of college, regarding a specific courseof action, the outcome of which can be measured in some way, e.g.,by subsequent course grades. However, we cannot expect that tests_will have been specifically validated against criteria for all decisionsof all students who may be aided by a better understanding of theircapabilities and characteristics as measured by tests. For effectivecounseling use of tests to help understand students and to help stu-dents understand themselves we must know "what the test measures",apart from its prediction of behavior in specific situations. Evidence ofthe meaning of test scores in terms of the psychological characteristics,or constructs, represented by the scores is termed "construct validity".Such evidence may take the form of analysis of the content of the test,synthesis of criterion-related validity coefficients, correlations withother tests, factor analysis, differences or similarities of scores of speci-fied groups ( e.g., age or educational levels ), item analysis, observationof test-taking behavior, and influence of training or experience on
6
scores. As with evidence of content validity, demonstration of whatthe test does not measure is as important as demonstration of what itdoes measure.
Interpretation of the Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT) for coun-seling secondary school students, for example, depends largely onconstruct validity. Although the DAT manual reports more than 5,000predictive validity coefficients, few counselors will have such evidenceavailable for their students and for criteria specifically relevant fortheir students, Focusing on the Mechanical Reasoning (MR) test wefind by examining the items that they deal with gears, levers, pulleys,the application of forces, and similar principles that are part of thecontent of physical mechanics. The items are presented pictorially,with verbal questions about the pictures, so the test requires somereading ability; but the questions and the words in them are short andshould be easily understood. Correlations of about .5 to .6 with theVerbal Reasoning test and with various intelligence tests indicate thatMR is measuring something different than verbal ability, and itemanalyses of .the very similar Mechanical Reasoning Test indicate thatit is measuring a general mechanical ability, not separate "leversability", "gears ability", etc. (Cronbach, 1970). On the average MRcorrelates higher with high school grades in science than in othersubjects (although it is not the best DAT predictor of science grades),and it was found to be an effective predictor of vocational school per-formance of machine shop students but not of auto mechanics stu-dents. Girls' scores on the test tend to be substantially lower and lessreliable than boys' scores and to have higher correlations with gradesin "unrelated" high school courses such as English and social science,suggesting that the test functions somewhat differently for the twosexes. Because MR is a revision of earlier Mechanical ComprehensionTests, evidence that scores on the latter are related to evaluations oftraining and job performance of various jobs c incerned with ma-chinery supports the construct validity of MR. Finally, MR scores arecorrelated about .4 with mechanical and scientific interests of boys asmeasured by the Kuder Preference Record and negligibly with otherinterests. Again, the relationships for girls are lower. Taken togetherthe evidence briefly summarized above supports the notion that MRmeasures a meaningful characteristic of students, one that is appro-priately labeled "mechanical reasoning", is not the same as generalintelligence, and is important in certain scientific and mechanicalpursuits though not in every activity labelled "mechanical".
Establishment of construct validity in a different domain is illus-trated by the development of the Academic Achievement (AACH)scale for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (Campbell andJohansson, 1966). This scale was developed by selecting SVIB itemsthat significantly differentiated between students with high grades in
7
college and high school and those with low grades. The scale corre-lated about .35 with high school and college grade averages in across-validation sample drawn from the same population as that onwhich the scale was constructed and also in a 25-year-old sample ofcollege freshmen tested in the 1930's. Low correlations with NISATscores show that the scale is not just another measure of scholasticaptitude. and the AACH score adds slightly to the multiple correla-tion of LISI1 and NISAT with college CPA. In 10-year and 25-yearfollow-up groups the scale showed substantial differences betweenstudents who dropped out of college and, in order, those who ob-tained BA, NIA, and PhD degrees. Scores were found to increase untilabout age 2S and then remain relatively stable, Examination of theitem content indicates that items scored positively represent scientific,aesthetic, and intellectual activities, whereas those scored negativelyinvolve sales, business, and manual skills. AACH scores of occupa-tional groups are ranked very much like the average educational levelsof the groups, with scientists (biologists, mathematicians, psychiatrists,physicists) at the top. and policemen, forest service men, pilots, andoffice workers at the bottom. Scores of outstanding persons in 10 occu-pations showed similar differences, with outstanding composers, novel-ists, astronauts, and psychologists scoring high and outstanding lifeinsurance salesmen, military men, and football coaches scoring low. Insummary the AACH scale appears to measure interest in activitiesthat lead to getting good grades and continuing in school, but it isnot a .measure of scholastic aptitude as such nor a predictor of successwithin occupations.
Norm-Referenced Scores
A norm-referenced score indicates an individual's standing in com-parison with a standard reference group of persons who have takenthe same test. In the interpretation of norm-referenced scores boththe nature of the score transformation and the nature of the referencegroup must be considered.
Score Transformations
The most commonly used norm-referenced scores are percentiles,standard scores, and grade equivalents.
PERCENTILES. Percentile scores indicate relative standing in agroup in very Much the way rank ordering does, and they are oftencalled percentile ranks. Because the meaning of a given rank dependson the size of the group ranked, percentiles adjust for group size by,in effect, indicating the equivalent of rank order in a standard groupof 100 scores. The concept of rank order and the analogy of "a ladderwith 100 rungs" are easy to understand, and percentiles are much used
8
because of the case with which their meaning can be communicated.The most likely misunderstanding of percentiles is an interpretationof them as indicating "percent correct'', and in reporting test resultsto students and parents it is important to insure that this interpretationis not made.
A distribution of percentile scores from a group comparable to thaton which the percentile norms are based, will be rectangular, that is,will have about the same number of cases at each score. There will be,for example, about the same number of scores at the 98th percentileas at the 50th. Because there are far more cases near the middle ofthe raw score distribution than near the extremes, a small raw scorechange results in a much larger percentile change near the middlethan near the extremes. This tendency to accentuate differences amongmid-range scores and de-emphasize differences among extreme scoresis a major disadvantage of percentiles.
STANDARD SCORES. This disadvantage is avoided by standard scores,in which differences are proportional to raw score differences. Stand-ard scores are anchored at the mean of the norm group distribution,with units proportional to the standard deviation of the norm groupdistribution. The basic standard score th,asformation ( z-score) is
made by subtracting the mean from each score and dividing the re-mainder by the standard deviation, producing a score with mean ofzero and standard deviation of 1. Because the fractional and negativescores produced by the z-score transformation are inconvenient, trans-formations that assign more units to the standard deviation and apositive score to the mean are usually used for score interpretation.Some standard score transformations commonly encountered by Min-nesota test users, are:
Score Mean S.D. Relation to z
Stanine 5 2 2z + 5
I TED, ACT 15 5 5z + 15'V -Score (Stanford HS) 50 10 10z + 50GATB 100 20 20z + 100CEEB 500 100 100z + 500
Because standard score differences are proportional to raw score dif-ferences, comparisons of scores in different parts of the distribution areless subject to misinterpretation than comparisons of percentiles; andstandard scores can be manipulated mathematically to obtain meaning-ful averages, correlations, etc. The meaning of a standard score is notimmediately clear, however, without some unden .coding of its relationto a normal distribution of scores. Fig. 2 pictures this relationship forseveral standard score scales as well as for percentiles.
9
L
S.1).
Pere( tit in 0.1 2.1 1:3.6 ,.3.1.1 1:3.6i111(1.val
1
Z-Scorn !JAI 1.0 21)I.. 1___ . ,
11) :30 .111 :ill lin 70 80i__. 1._ L
.5):1' Serve S 1ii 15 L/11 .30
J t _t I I
CEP./ 4 S,vre. 200 :300 400 500 600 7(1(1 SOO
_.
(:AT)) Sc,'' . 16 60 SO 100 1211 110 160
:3 .1 5 / 6 / 7 4 s 1Staniar I . 21
0Percent in .ri 77 12'; 17'; 20'; 17'3 12'; 7';
stanine
Percent) 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 5)) .0)1
l'igtu 2. Common >vere seal.~ and 01,
gq
CIIADE EQUIVALENTS. Whereas a percentile or a standard score indi-cates the location of a score within One specified norm group distribu-tion, a grade-equivalent score identifies a specific score distribution forwhich the obtained score is the median. The score distribution is forstudents at a particular grade level. For example, if the grade equiva-lent for a raw score of 38 is 4.0, 38 would be the median score of thenorm group of beginning 4th-graders. Decimal parts are added torepresent fractions of a 10 -month school year, so that a grade equiva-lent of 4.2, for example, represents the median of students tested atthe end of the second month of the 4th grade. Although there is ahypothetical norm group for each separate grade equivalent, in prac-tice only a few levels are tested within the range of grade equivalentsreported. A junior high school achievement test might be normed onstudents tested in the middle of the seventh (7.5), eighth (8.5) andninth (9.5) grades, for example. Intermediate grade equivalents aredetermined by interpolation, and equivalents below tly:! lowest grouptested and above the highest group tested are determined by extra-polation.
Because grade equivalents are especially convenient for measuringprogress, and because the significance of the score that is "built in" inthe form of reference to educational levels seems especially easy to
10
understand, grade equivalents arc widely used They have some dis-advantages, however, that should cause users to interpret them withspecial cautit,;,. Although the meaning of a grade equivalent of 6.6for a student in the middle of the (ith grade is clear, the meaningof the same score for a student in the middle of the 4th grade isless clear because we have no guidance as to whether such a deviationfrom the "expected" score is rare and significant or common. Certainlythe two scores represent different kinds of achievement and have quitedifferent meanings for the two students. Because students do not pro-gress at the same rate in different subjects nor in the same subject atdifferent levels, comparisons across subjects are difficult to interpret.At the high school level, where students are not taught every subjectevery year, grade equivalents have largely been abandoned for thisreason. Finally, grade equivalents seem especially likely to he mis-interpreted as performance standards. It seems easier to accept thenotion that, on the average, half the students in the class must hebelow the 50th percentile than that half must he below "grade level".
Perhaps the simplest source of misunderstanding of a test score tobe guarded against is confusion among the concepts underlying thevarious score transformations, A score of 75, for example, might be agrade equivalent with the decimal point omitted ( common practice),a percentile rank, a standard score: mean 50, or a standard score:mean 100. Knowledge and understanding of the specific transforma-tion is obviously essential to correct interpretation of the score.
Norm Groups
Because the meaning carried by norm-referenced scores is relativestanding in a defined reference group, the characteristics of the ref-erence group are most important.
SIZE. The group must have adequate size to provide stable results.If the norm group is a sample from a large population, it must belarge enough so that variations due to sampling are minimized.Even when the norm group can be regarded as the entire population,as, for example, with school or class norms, anomalous and possiblymisleading norms may be obtained if the group is very small. For thisreason, local norms computed in the Minnesota High School StatewideTesting Program are based on two years' testing if possible when thesize of a single class is less than 50.
REPRESENTATIVENESS. Adequate size does not insure that a normgroup will be adequately representative of the population specified.Norm groups are frequently difficult to obtain, and it is rare thatsamples can be randomly selected. The factors that do influence selec-tion are likely to cause the norm group to be unrepresentative in un-known ways. Norms for the MSAT are based on the scores of nearly
11
every Minnesota high school junior in a given year, and their represen-tativeness is thereby assured. Minnesota norms for tests in the HighSchool Statewide Testing Program, on the other hand, must be basedon substantially less than the total population of Minnesota studentsin a given class because testing practices vary considerably amongschools. To provide more assurance of representativeness norms forthese tests are based on scores of students from schools whose com-bined NISAT score distribution is the same as that of the state as awhole. To the extent that the distributions of ability being normedparallel the distribution of scholastic aptitude measured by MSAT,this procedurn increases the representativeness of the norms. "Usernorms", which arc based on all the students from a defined populationwho happen to have taken the test, should be especially suspect.
Cunu Excv. Norms must be representative not only at the time theyare developed but also at the time they are used. Norms that are notcurrent may be misleading because they do not reflect educational andoccupational changes. The MSAT, for example, was normed in 1959 onentering Minnesota college freshmen who had been tested as highschool juniors. To provide consistency of interpretation from year toyear this norm has been continued even though it cannot be relied onto represent the present Minnesota college population. Consequently,more current norms for high school juniors and various types of col-leges also arc presented.
APPROPRIATENESS. Given technical soundness in the form of ade-quate size, representativeness, and currency of a norm group, it isalso important to consider the appropriateness of a norm group bothfor the student and for the decisions to be made. The student may becurrently a member of the populations represented by some norms, sotheir appropriateness for the student is assured. A 9th-grade Minnesotastudent who has taken the Lorge-Thornlike Intelligence Test (LTIT)and the Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED) is a memberof the populations represented by local school, Minnesota, and na-tional norms for each test,. all of which are appropriate for him. For-decisions about his educational experiences in the immediate future,the local norms would be most appropriate because they indicate howhe compares with his classmates in various areas. For longer-rangeplanning the Minnesota norms, because they represent the studentswith whom he would most likely be compared in other high schoolsor post-high school institutions, would be more helpful. National aswell as state norms might be used in evaluating how well the school'seducational program achieved in various domains the kind of educa-tional development expected for students with ability levels like thosein the school.
For example, Alice's LTIT Verbal and Non-verbal scores of 59 and52 put her at the 73rd percentile according to 9th-grade Minnesota
12
limns, indicating :in above-average student. On local norms for herschool, however, these scores are at the 99th and 93rd percentiles,respectively, which suggest that she is likely to move much morerapidly than most of her classmates and may require special materialto enable her to apply her abilities appropriately. In another schoolBrian's 9th-grade LT1T scores of 60 and 51 give him local percentilescores of 49 and 46, indicating an average student who should progresswith the rest of the class. His percentiles of 75 and 70 on state norms,however, show above average ability, suggesting that his educationalprogram should be one that will support many possible post-highschool options.
Some norms represent populations of which the student is onlypotentially, not currently, a member. The MSAT, for example, offersboth types. Each student who takes the test is clearly a member of thehigh school junior norm group, but only potentially a Minnesota col-lege freshman, Similarly, the Minnesota Vocational-Technical Schoolnorms for scores on the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) andMinnesota Vocational Interest Inventory (MVII) represent applic artswho successfully completed various training programs. Such norms in-dicate not only relative standing in the norm population, but alsowhether it is reasonable to consider the student as a member of thepopulation in the first place. Cathy's MSAT score of 32 is average(53rd percentile) among high school juniors and also among Minne-sota junior college freshmen (51st percentile ), somewhat below aver-age among State College freshmen (35th percentile), and substantiallybelow average among liberal arts college freshmen (11th percentile),Nevertheless, Cathy clearly is a potential member of any of thesegroups, and it is reasonable to explore additional information about allthree types of college. Douglas' MSAT score of 20, however, givinghim a liberal arts college percentile of 1, indicates not only thatDouglas' chances of successful performance in most Minnesota liberalarts colleges are quite low but also that his more specific estimates ofperformance in such colleges (see "Criterion-Referenced Scores")may not be applicable to Douglas because he is quite unlike the popu-lations on which they are based. He is, however, a potential memberof the junior college population .(12th percentile), and performanceestimates based on this group would be meaningful. It is importantto note that, although members of such norm groups are identifiedafter they become members of the defined population, their status, atthe time they were tested was the same as that of the students to whomthe norms are applied. Thus the Minnesota college freshmen normgroups were tested as high school juniors, and the vocational - technicalprogram graduates were tested as applicants for the programs. Somenorms, such as those often reported for employees in various occupa-tions, are based on groups of persons already in the defined popula-
13
tion at the time they are tested. In applying such norms to personswho are only potential members of the norm population, the influenceon the test results of status at time of testing must be considered.
Multi-Score Tests
PROFILES. Although the principles of test interpretation applywhether there is a single score or several, additional considerationsare involved in tests or test batteries that produce multiple scores.Such scores are commonly presented on pro files, which offer zi con-venient means of displaying several items of information. A testprofile is simply a graphic representation of several scores on compar-able scales. Fig. 3 is an example of one such profile, showing Edwin's
99
95
90
85
80
75
70
60
Luz 50
6.w 40
30
25
20
15
10
PROFILE OF PERCENTILE RANKS
Vgdial Howled As 'net Spin. 41.ch nleal CI. killR In. Ability lionsaning Relation. Peel mina Sc. 6 Ace, YR* NA
Figure 3. Edwin's DAT profile14
99
95
90
85
80
75
70
60
50
40
30
25
20
15
10
5
Minnesota percentile scores on the DAT plotted as vertical barsextending above or below the midpoint of the score range for eachtest. Profiles are often prepared also with adjacent scores connected toeach other, rather than to the midpoint of the scales, with straightlines, as in Fig. 4, The key word in the definition , I' a test profile is"comparable". It is inappropriate to profile raw scores because thereis no basis for comparing raw scores on one test with those on another.The raw scores must be transformed to scales with comparable units,such as percentiles or standard scores. Furthermore, the transforma-tions for all tests must be based on the same norm group. The provi-sion of such comparability was an important objective and is now abasic feature of standardized batteries of aptitude and achievementtests.
DIFFEBENCE sconEs. Because profiles do make score comparisoneasy, it is important to guard against over-interpretation of the differ-ences that appear. The concept of error of measurement is especiallyimportant in evaluating differences in scores because the measurementerrors cumulate, making the differences less reliable than the separatescores. In psychometric terms the standard error of the difference,S. E.D, is given by
S. E.D = + S202 (5)where Sol and are the standard errors of the two tests whose scoresare being compared. If the two standard errors are equal, formula (5)indicates that S.E.D is about 1.4 times the standard errors of the in-dividual tests. Computation of S.E.D is cumbersome, and test pub-lishers commonly offer convenient guides to the significance of scoredikierences. When scores are reported as percentile bands, as on Schooland College Ability Tests and Sequential Tests of Educational Prog-ress, bands that do not overlap are regarded as representing reliablydifferent true scores. The manual for the High School StanfordAchievement Test ( SAT) includes a table of standard errors of differ-ence for each pair of tests in the battery, which should be consultedin evaluating SAT profiles. The reported S.E.D of 5 for Spelling andNumerical Competence, for example, indicates that only one-third ofthe time would differences as large as 5 be obtained if the true scoresfor these abilities are equal, and only 5% of the time would differ-ences as large as 10 be obtained.
Nearly all of the SAT S.E.D's range from 4 to 6, although a feware as small as 3. Standardized tests used for individual student diag-nosis and guidance should generally have reliabilities close to .9,which will provide S.E.D's of about half a standard deviation (5 pointson the SAT standard score scale). Following a practice established bythe publishers of the DAT, the profiles for the multi-score tests in the
15
Minnesota Statewide Testing Program are printed with 1 inch =I S.D.S.E.D ( approximately ), so that differences of one inch or more
correspond to a critical ratio of 2 (5 percent significance level) andmay be regarded as significantly different. It is suggested that differ-ences of one-half inch be interpreted if confirmed by other evidence.Comparison of Edwin's DAT scores in Fig. 3 with the 50th percentilereference line indicates that his scores arc generally low, only thescore on Mechanical Reasoning reaching the average level. Of theindividual scores, Mechanical Reasoning is significantly different fromall except perhaps Space Relations; whereas the others, despite theirapparent differences, are sufficiently similar that differences amongthem should not be emphasized.
The "one-inch rule" is approximate, of course. It is conservativewhen the reliabilities of the tests exceed .9; and, of the tests in theMinnesota Statewide Testing Program, the Arithmetic ApplicationsTest in the Stanford Advanced battery, Iowa Tests of Basic SkillsArithmetic Problems and \York-Study Skills snbtests, and DAT Me-chanical Reasoning test (for girls ) have reliabilities too low for scoredifferences to be interpreted in this way.
PROFILE APPLICATIONS. Profiles conveniently display both theoverall level of a student's scores and areas of strength or weakness.Thus Frank's 11th -grade 1TED scores in Fig. 4 show generally superiorperformance, with special strength in mathematics and some weaknessin English expression, literature, and vocabulary. The scores providea basis for discussion with Frank of his high school program for theremainder of his junior and senior year and of his post-high schoolplans. The counselor may wish to suggest that Frank concentrate onimproving his communication skills in preparation for college work.Fig. 4 illustrates another use of profiles, namely for examining change.Frank's performance is very consistent from the 9th- to the 11th- grade,except for a fairly sizable improvement in his social studies score. Thischange may reflect au unusual course sequence in Frank's case, orperhaps the development of new interests.
A test profile is a convenient way to summarize group as well asindividual test performance. Overall performance of a school or classcan be evaluated in comparison with the norm-group average, andstrengths and weaknesses can be noted in the same way as with in-dividual scores. Similarly the scores of the same group at two differenttimes or of two different groups at the same time can be plotted onone profile to facilitate group comparisons and reveal changes. Specialcare must be taken in evaluating the magnitude of group differencesin terms of score scales based on individuals, because the mean scoresof groups are much less variable than individual scores. Whereas anindividual percentile score of 60,differs rather inconsequentially fromthe midpoint of the norm group, a group mean at the 60th percentile
16
is likely to be extremely high in comparison with other groups. Preciseinterpretation of such differences requires norms of group means.
99
95
90
8075
70
2 60
tt 50
It' 40
3025
20
10
5
PROFILE OF PERCENTILE RANKS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SDC 6 o
soc NAT. cop. GUSH?. moC. AOC. 113C. SAC GEN vOCaa COMP U9C99u3 SC,. 11,..qr99 .., . HOC ...SO. LET. 5.7 1.8 811
x lit i grade0 C 9th grade
Figure -I. Frank s 11.F.1) scurf. s
99
95
90
BO
75
70
60:n
50 =,
r.43
22
25
20
10
To learn more about the nature of group differences revealed bythe profile it may be helpful to examine the distributions of scores forindividual tests. Fig: 5 shows 9th-grade percentile scores for the Min-nesota norm group and the local percentiles for one school plottedagainst raw scores on the SAT-HS English Test. (Either percentilescores or cumulative percentages can be used, but both groups mustbe represented in the same way.) The school's average score is some-what below the state mean, but the graph shows that this differenceappears almost entirely in the lower part of the score distribution.This evidence does not explain the lower mean score, of course. Onepossibility is that the curriculum or the instruction is such that in-sufficient attention has been given to the less able students. An equallytenable hypothesis is that the English achievement scores reflect asimilar distribution of learning ability of the students in the school.
17
This hypothesis could be checked by examining scores of the samestudents on a general intelligence test such as Urn' in comparisonwith state norms.
Standard Score
Figure 5. SAT-IiS English score distributions for state and a localgroup.
SIMILARITY INDEXES. We sometimes wish to compare a student'sscores with each of several reference groups. This may be done eitherby transforming the student's scores into standard scores or percentilesbased on each reference group in turn, or by displaying the referencegroup distributions as well as ehe student's performance in terms of asingle norm. Minnesota vocaijonal training program norms for theGATI3 and MVII are of the latter type. As a student's scores are com-pared wit: each of several groups and similarities and differences arenoted, questions of how different the student is from a given group,or which group he is most like, arise; and the multiple comparisonsproduce more information than even profiles can conveniently sum-marize. To summarize such comparisons and obtain answers to ques-tions like those above, indexes of profile similarity are used. One such
18
index, the centour score, is reported as part of the Statewide Voca-tional Testing Program. Contour scores are like the scores on a target,where the bullseye, or the crnier (not the top) of the reference group,gets a score of 100, and the rings successively fto ther in any directionfrom the center get successively lower scores. A centour score of zero,like missing the target completely, corresponds to a set of test scoresoutside of the "tcst space" occupied by any scores in the referencegroup. (In actual use (vigour scores a e usually based on more thantwo test scores, and therefore more than two dimensions, and takeinto account not just differences in individual scores but also in scorecombinations. Consequently the "target" is elliptical rather thanround, and multi-dimensional rather than fiat.) Just as a student'spercentile gives the percentage of scores in the norm group lowerthan his, the ecntour score gives the percentage of score combinationsin the norm group "further out than his. Like all summaries, centourscores both reveal and conceal information. A student's centour scoresreveal his similarity simultaneously to a large number of referencegroups in which he may be interested. At the same time they concealthe specific ways in which he is similar to and different from each ofthem. Contour scores of 50 for three different groups may result froma student's having all higher scores than the iiverage for one group,all lower scores than the average for another, and some higher andsome lower than the average for the third. The differences are im-portant, and to discover them we must go back to each profile andconsider it in detail.
For example, Greg's centour scores (Table 1) show little similarityto any of the 18 Minnesota Vocational School training programs forwhich the scores are reported. Examination of his aptitude scoresindicates that they are all lower, some of them substantially lower,than average for students in these programs. These are not the onlytraining programs available, of course, nor do these tests measure allimportant abilities. It will be necessary for the counselor to explorewith Greg his possible strengths in other areas and the ways in whichthese strengths match possible training or job opportunities.
Helen's scores, like Greg's, are dissimilar to those of graduates ofall 18 programs, but the reason is quite different in her case. Most ofher aptitude scores are quite high in comparison with the vocationalschool population. Helen may want to start with a more academicprogram, perhaps in a junior college, where she would have anopportunity more gradually to narrow her focus on a career programor a college transfer curriculum.
Although none of Irene's contour scores is high, she does haveseveral Agri-technology, Clerical training, Cosmetology that sug-gest a careful look at these fiells. Her weakest ability, according to
19
TABLE 1
SVTP Scores for Five Students
Contours Greg Helen Irene Jerry Karen
1. Aircraft Nlechanies 0 0 I 50 1
2. Agri-Technology 0 9 21 30 7
3. Autonmtives 3 0 12 82 20
4. Electronic 0 2 1 230 9
5. Carpentry 0 0 0 68 1
6. Farm Equipment Nleeh.. , 0 0 2 82 5
7. Machine Shop 0 0 1 82 5
S. Mcch Drafting. 0 0 0 90 4
9. Power Home Elect: 1 0 4 81 7
10. Printing, Graphics 4 1 2 82 12
11. Welding 7 0 6 68 11
12. Accounting 0 3 6 (13 29
13. Clerical 0 2 25 64 68
14. Cosmetology 0 3 21 44 71
15. Data Processing 0 3 3 60 27
16. Practical Nursing. 0 16 12 68 74
17. Sales 0 0 4 72 34
18. Secretarial 0 20 10 48 70
Aptitudes1. General 70 124 78 113 1072. Verbal 78 139 96 100 1043. Numerical 54 117 81 107 1074. Spatial 97 117 94 137 101
5. Form Perception 84 129 107 111 1406. Clerical Perception ..... 100 129 115 118 1307. Motor 82 103 101 111 132
20
the aptitude scores, is in working with numbers (which also influencesthe G score). Neither the contour scores nor the aptitude scores pro-vide any information about the relative importance of this weakness;':r various occupations, but both the "construct validity" of numericalability and the lower mean N score of the Cosmetology studentssuggest that it may be less significant in the Cosmetology programthan in either of the other two.
In contrast to the other students, Jerry's scores fall in the areawhere all the training groups overlap. Asa result, all of his centourscores are high, including several that are very high. Although thehigh centour scores provide some guidance, Jerry's ability pattern fitswell into all the training groups, and other considerations than hisabilities will likely determine his choice.
The pattern of Karen's scores is similar to Irene's, but all of heraptitude scores are higher, and this difference is reflected in highercontour scores in more areas. In addition to clerical and cosmetologytraining, practical nursing and secretarial training offer good possi-bilities.
It is important to note that similarity indexes, like all norm-ref-crenced scores, do not in themselves indicate the likelihood of behaviorof any kind other than that required by the tests themselves. To pre-dict from the test scores to behavior in other situations we must relyon information about test validity, which is not introduced or repre-sented by the norming process.
INTEREST PROFILES, Interest profiles arc a special case of scorerepresentation by profile. 13ecause of the way occupational scales areconstructed, the practice has developed of norming each scale on itsown occupational group, rather than on a single standard referencegroup for all scales. On the SVIB and NIVII the scores are standardscores with an occupational group mean of 50 and S.D. of 10; on theKudcr Occupational Interest Survey the scores are, in effect, corre-lations between the students' responses and those of each referencegroup. Such profiles must be interpreted somewhat differently fromthose based on a single norm group. To provide a comparable refer-ence point the SVIB and Mill profiles show the mid-third range ofscores for a standard men-in-general group on each scale. These con-siderations do not apply to the Basic Scales of the SV113 or the Ho-mogeneous Scales of the NINTH, which in each case are all normcd ona single reference group.
21
Criterion-Referenced Scores
Whereas norm-referencing procedures provide meaning to testscores in terms of relative standing in a defined group of persons,criterion - referencing provides meaning in terms Of expected behavior.The behavior may be defined by the test content itself, in which casewe h.wc COlitellt scores, or by a separate ( criterion ) measure, in whichcase we have predicted scores.
Content Scores
Scores on a content-referenced scale are summaries of the behavioron the test. Rate scores ( e.g. reading rate, typing speed ) and per-centage scores are commonly used to represent performance, but tohave meaning such scores must be accompanied by definitions ofthe content itself. Thus we have a "reading rate of 247 wpm on pas-sages from The Readers' Digest," or "83 percent accuracy on 2-digitby 2-digit multiplication problems". If brief descriptions do not sufficeto define the content, samples or examples may be used, such as"ability to spell 77 percent of words such as ambitious, anticipate,disappoint, eligible, indefinite, liability, miniature, oblige, sympathy,treasurer". To be most useful the content referred to should be notjust described but scaled, so that mastery of a specified level impliesmastery of all easier levels. Such scaling is just beginning in somefields, and few standardized instruments are available that reflect it.A fundamental requirement for the use of content-referenced scores,of course, is satisfactory content validity.
Predicted Scores
If criterion-related validity has been demonstrated, the validityrelationship can be used to report test performance directly in termsof expected criterion behavior. This is usually done in the form ofeither criterion estimates or expectancy tables or graphs.
CurrEmox ESTIMATES. Given a linear relationship between a testscore (or scores) and a criterion variable, as reflected by a significantvalidity coefficient, an individual's expected score on the criterionvariable can be predicted by the corresponding regression equation.From the correlation of .60 between College Aptitude Rating ( CAR )and first-term grades (GPA) of University of Minnesota-Duluth fresh-men, for example, we obtain the following equation for predictingGPA from CAR, where CAR is one-half the sum of high school rank(FISH) plus MSAT college percentile:
GPA = .74 -I- .02 CAR (6)
From this equation we learn that the predicted UMD GPA corre-sponding to the minimum acceptable CAR of 40 is 1.54.
22
Like any test scores predicted scores are accompanied by unced-Utility. In the case of predicted scores, however, this uncertainty iscaused not only by the error of measurement of the test score, butalso by measurement error in the criterion and by lack of perfectcorrelation between the true scores of the two measures. The combina-tion of these three sources of error usually results i» considerable im-precision in prediction, and it is important that this uncertainty berecognized in interpreting predicted scores. It is usually expressed asthe standard error of estimate, computed as
S.1E,t = Se 1_r'', (7)
where r is the validity coefficient and Sc is the criterion standard devi-ation, and interpreted as the standard deviation of observed criterionscores around each predicted score. Fig. 6 portrays the standarderror of estimate in relation to the standard deviation of criterionscores.
/Nlean
Itottression line
Predicted scoreS.F. est
Predictor Predictor score
Figure 6. Itelation of standard error of estimate to criterion standarddeviation,
In the case of the UMD regression equation discussed above thestandard error of estimate is computed from the validity coefficientand the criterion S.D. to be .60. This figure, combined with the pre-dicted GPA obtained above, indicates that of students with a CARof 40 two-thirds will obtain CPA's between .94 and 2.14 and 95%will obtain GPA's between .34 and 2.74. The importance of taking intoaccount the error of estimate in interpreting predicted scores is indi-cated by the width of the range needed to provide considerable as-surance that the criterion score will indeed be included in the pre-dieted range.
23
Predicted scores are used, of course, not for persons whose criterionscores are known, but for a new group of individuals (e.g., applicants)who have not been measured on the criterion. The standard error ofestimate does not take into account sai ,:ing error in determiningthe regression equation. Interpretation of a predicted score and itsassociated estimate of precision assumes that the score comes fromthe same population represented by the sample on which the regres-sion equation was determined and that this sample is large enough toprovide accurate estimates of the regression parameters for the popu-lation.
Expectancy Tables
Instead of predicting a specific criterion score and accompanyingconfidence band corresponding to each test score, a common practiceis to report the probability of obtaining a criterion score within cer-tain fixed ranges or above certain points. The criterion ranges forwhich probabilities are given are the same for all test scores, and theprobabilities usually are reported for test score ranges rather than forindividual scores. The Minnesota State-wide Testing Program ex-pectancy tables relating high school rank (HSR) and MSAT scoreto first-term grades in each Minnesota college are examples of thismethod of criterion - referenced score interpretation. These tables wereproduced by determining the proportions.of students in each fifth ofthe predictor distribution who obtained a college grade average ofC or better and of B or better. Application of the tables can be illus-trated with the scores of Linda, who has always done above averagebut not outstanding Work in school (HSR=63) and has been develop-ing a serious interest in art, in which she seems to have some talent.She wants a "good, general education" and plans to obtain it at theUniversity of Minnesota, which she can attend while living at home.Her MSAT score of 36 is consistent with her high school record(junior percentile =63), and is sufficient to enter the College ofLiberal Arts (college percentile=58). Linda's HSR is in the 60-79range of the CLA expectancy table, which is clearly below averagefor CLA females (above 12% and below 59%) but indicates a reason-able probability (67%) of obtaining at least a C average. Her chancesof getting a B average or better are nit high (10%). Informationprovided by the MSAT expectancy table is consistent. Her collegepercentile, in the 40-59 range, is in the lowest quarter of enteringCLA students and shows grade probabilities nearly identical to theHSR table. Linda has been considering, besides CLA, the applied artsprogram in the School of Home Economics. According to the AFHEexpectancy tables Linda's scores are below average for entering fresh-men here also, but not quite so far below, and her chances of gettingsatisfactory gmi''os are somewhat higher (79% and 80%). Properlyinterpreted tbeL,i data can help Linda understand some differences
24
between the two colleges, consider the kind of program and level ofintellectual challenge most appropriate for her, and stimulate her toseek further information to help her resolve the choice.
In the Minnesota expectancy tables the HO ranges are based onthe within-school FISH percentiles, whereas the MSAT ranges arebased on the percentile scores for entering college freshmen. Thus,the sets of tables for the tv.n variables present somewhat differentinformation, not only because of their different content but also be-cause they use different divisions of the total ability range. If the tablesfor each college were based on score ranges dividing the entering stu-dents in that college into approximately equal proportions, the tableswould be more useful for that college; but, because the Statewideexpectancy tables are intended for use in guidance of students con-sidering attendance at various colleges, the same predictor ranges areused for all colleges to facilitate comparisons and avoid confusion. Acompromise is offered for the more selective institutions by dividingthe top range into two, making six ranges in all. Caution should there-fore be used to avoid comparing grade expectations for scores in thetop category (upper 10%) for these schools with expectations forscores in the top category (upper 20%) for the other colleges.
In comparison with criterion estimates based on regression equa-tions, expectancy tables do not require a normal bivariate distributionunderlying their interpretation, and they avoid an unwarranted ap-pearance of precision. The uncertainties associated with measurementerror and degree of relationship between the variables are reflectedby the probability figures themselves. However, there are importantcautions to be observed in using expectancy tables, cautions whichreflect the fact that the tabled figures are actually proportions ofprevious classes rather than probabilities of future performance. (Ithas been suggested that they be called experience tables rather thanexpectancy tables.) First, in interpreting the figures as expectanciesfor new students we must assume that the composition of the newclasses will be the same with respect to academic ability as the classeson which the tables are based and that they will be treated the same,i.e., that grading practices will remain the same.. (Theoretically, it isunnecessary to assume that class composition remains the same ifabsolute marking standards do not change; but, because most gradingis at least partly relative, it is more realistic to expect that a markedchange in class composition will charge the expectancies.) Enteringclasses will differ somewhat from year to year; but, unless there is adefinite change in policy, such as an increase in admission standards,the differences are likely to be slight enough to maintain the validityof the expectancy tables. Over a period of years, however, suchchanges can cumulate, so the tables must either he reasonably currentor be accompanied by evidence of consistency, such as predictor and
25
criterion distributions that remain the same from year to year, if theyare to be relied on. Second, it is important that each table be basedon a group large enough to provide stable proportions. Like the stand-ard error of estimate the expectancies reflect uncertainty due tomeasurement mid prediction error but not that due to sampling varia-tion. The number of cases in each predictor range ( i.e., each row ofthe Statewide tables) determines the stability of the proportions forthat range. It is for this reason that predictors are grouped into justfive or six categories rather than a larger number that would permitmore discriminating probability estimates. As it is, some ranges forsmall schools and even for large schools with skewed predictor dis-tributions have too few cases for the computation of reliable propor-tions. The tables contain no expectancies for predictor ranges withfewer than 10 cases, but even with an N of 1) the standard error ofthe percentage may be as large as 16. With an N Of 50 the standarderror is not larger than 7. Because the classes on which the percentagesare based are obviously not random samples from the schools' popu-lations of entering students, interpretation of the standard error interms of expected variation for future classes is not possible; but it isclear that the expectancies based on small N's should be used withextra caution. Finally, expectancy tables are necessarily based on theexperiences of enrolled students; and these students form population sthat differ from high school seniors in ways varying from one collegeto another as a result of both college admissions policies and practicesand student? college selection decisions. To refer a student's score toa given expectancy table it must be reasonable to consider him a po-tential member of the population on which the table is based. If thetable shows no scores in the range containing the student's score,- it isclear that the table is not applicable to him. Even if a small percentageof the class had similar predictor scores, these students were atypicalof their classmates with respect to these scores; and, inasmuch as theywere enrolled despite this atypicality, they are likely to be atypicalin unknown ways of students with similar scores. Thus, not only ex-pectancies based on small N's, -but also those based on small propor-tions of the class, should be viewed with caution.
Consider, for example, Michael's HSR of 36. The expectancy tablefor the U of M College of Liberal Arts indicates that Michael's chancesof obtaining passing grades (57%) or a 13 average or better (11%)are slightly larger than those of boys with HSR's in the range of 40-59.The first explanation to be considered for anomalies of this kind inthe tables is a small number of cases, but in this case the N of about70 (4% of 1981) should be sufficient to avoid fluctuations of this sizemerely because of sampling error. As noted above, students whoenroll in a college despite very low predictor scores are likely to havespecial strengths in other areas or high scores on other predictors.
26
Unless Michael has such strengths lie would be unwise to rely tooheavily on the tabled expeetancies. For CLA, of course, because ofthe admissions requirement of an itverage FISH and MSAT percentileof 50, enrolled students with IISR's of 20-39 can be expected to haveNISAT percentiles of at least 61-SO.
When predictions of the same criterion arc made front more thanone predictor, the results will not always agree. Norma is thinking ofgoing to St. Cloud State College, and referral of her MSAT percentileof 40 to the expectancy table indicates that her chances of obtainingpassing grades on the average are 70%, but .according to her FISHof 39 her chances of getting a C average arc only 30%. Which iscorrect? Part of the discrepancy may be ascribed to the fact thatNorma's scores are at the upper edge of one interval and at the loweredge of the other. The coarse grouping results in some inaccuracy.Thus Norma's chances for a C average arc undoubtedly more likethose of a student with MR of 40, for which the tabled probability is57%, than like those of a student whose FIST . is 20, which is inNorma's interval with 30% probability. Some interpolation Of proba-bilities may be made to adjust for this phenomenon, but even withsuch adjustments Norma's two predictions are discrepant. To deter-mine which is more valid, Norma should consider with her counselorsuch information as whether special problems or responsibilities,which would not affect her college work, have held her high schoolgrades down; whether her other test scores confirm the ability indi-cated by the MSAT score or suggest that it is singularly high; whetherNorma's academic motivation and study habits have changed in sucha way as to give her a better chance of success in college than herhigh school grades' indicate.
As the considerations above suggest, the expectancy tables do notin themselves decide whether or not a student should attend a givencollege. The same probability of success that leads one student tochoose a college may lead another to look elsewhere. A 30% chanceof success may encourage one student, whereas a 70% chance maydiscourage another. Nor should the tables be used to "shop" for acollege by seeking to identify the college ;71 which the student has thebest chance of obtaining good grades. 'ant they do provide informa-tion, suggest additional questions, and supply some answers to helpclarify tentative choices or narrow the field of possibilities.
DISCREPANCY SCORES. Expectancy tables may be used not only tohelp reach decisions about the future but also to help explain the past.In the latter application, comparison of actual performance with ex-pectancies based on previous scores may aid a counselor in under-standing that performance. Quite different explanations of a student'sfailing grades, and different courses of action, may be indicated if
27
his probability of a passing average were, say 17%, than if it were70%.
Expectancy tables especially intended for this kind of interpreta-tion, rather than prediction, of performance are sometimes providedfor combinations of ability and achievement test scores. The manualfor the SAT High School Battery presents quartile scores for eachachievement test based on the distributions of scores for students ineach stanine on the Otis Gamma Mental Ability Test. Orley's stanuardscore of 57 on the English test puts him well above average (nationalnorms) for 11th-graders in general, but more than three-fourths of11th-grade students with Otis scores in the 8th stanine, as his is, scorehigher. This information may lead the teacher or counselor to a differ-ent interpretation of his English score than its percentile equivalentalone. Because the interest in expectancy tables of this kind is on thediscrepancy betwen the ability and achievement scores, they are dis-cussed here under the heading of '!discrepancy scores"; but in realitysuch expectancy tables do not give criterion-referenced scores at all.Neither the ability test nor the achievement test is a criterion. Theability test, rather, is used to divide the norm group into morehomogeneous subgroups so that more specific norms can be provided.Emphasis on the norm-referenced character of this kind of informa-tion may help to avoid reification of score differences into conceptssuch as "underachiever" and "overachiever". At the very least it isimportant to be aware of the differences between criterion-referencedand norm-referenced expectancy tables. Thorndike (1967) has pointedout a paradox in connection with the latter, namely that their valuedepends on the existence of moderate, rather than very high or verylow, relationships between abilit; and achievement scores. If the rela-tionship is very low, of course, achievement norms for low-abilitystudents' will not be appreciably different than those for high-abilitystudents; and subdivision of the norm group will be useless. If therelationship is extremely high, on the other hand, the tests will bemeasuring much the same thing; and discrepancies between scores onthe two instruments will be due largely to measurement error and notsubject to meaningful interpretation. For prediction purposes, ofcourse, the higher the relationship represented in an expectancy table,the more helpful is the information.
Selected References
This summary of test interpretation principles is clearly no morethan an overview of the psychometric technology that test users shouldunderstand if they are to interpret and apply test results effectively.It is hoped that it will serve both as a quick reference and as a reviewand reminder. For more detailed exposition both of general principles
28
and of specific information about tests commonly used in Minnesota,the following references may be consulted.
Anastasi, A, Psychological Testing (3rd cd.). New York: Macmil-lan, 1968.
This is a sound and comprehensive text, based on a thoroughcoverage of the relevant literature.
Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., and Wesman, A. G. Counselingfrom Profiles. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1951.
The case studies that arc presented in this booklet are amongthe best aids that have appeared for bridging the gap betweentest scores and the reality behind the scores.
Campbell, D. P., and Johansson, C. B. "Academic interests, scholas-tic achievements and eventual occupation". Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 1966, 13, 416-424.
Exemplifies a varied approach to establishing the meaning of anew psychometric scale.
Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of Psychological Testing ( 3rd ed.) NewYork: Harper and Row, 1970.
In addition to a thorough and excellent coverage of the field,this text includes the latest insights into measurement principlesresulting from the author's continuing research in the field.
Gardner, E. T. "Interpreting Achievement ProfilesUses and Warn-ings". Measurement in Education, 1970, 1, ( 2), 1-11.
An especially helpful issue new series of reports from the.National Council on Measurement on Education.
Goldman, L. Using Tests in Counseling. ( 2d ed.), New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.
As the title implies, in addition to presenting the fundamentalsof test score interpretation, this text carries the process furtherinto applications in the counseling situation.
Layton, W. L. Construction of a short form of the Ohio State Uni-versity Psychological Examination. Student Counseling Bureau, Uni-versity of Minnesota.
Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals.Washington, D. C. American Psychological Association, 1966.
Thorndike, R. L. Expectancy tables sense and nonsense. Paperpresented to the 17th Annual Conference of the Minnesota StatewideTesting Programs, Minneapolis, September 16, 1967.
Thorndike, R. L. (ed.) Educational Measurement, Washington,D. C.: American Council on Education, 1971.
The state of the art in educational measurement is representedby this compendium of articles by experts on the major tech-nical topics in the field.
29
Minnesota State-Wide Norms
for
LORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Form 1, Level E (Grades 7 & 8) and Level F (Grade 9)
1966
Males and Females Combined
These norms are for pupils who took the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests (LTIT) in the fall of1965, through the Minnesota High School State-WideTesting Program and are based on the "Multi-LevelEdition" published in 1964.
Grade N (Schools) N (Students)7 147 9,8998 68 4,9979 31 2,671
Tables are provided for the two batteries, Verbaland Nonverbal, and for the Total Score. The TotalScore is the sum of the Verbal and Nonverbal rawscores.
The representativeness of these norms was checkedby comparing the Ivlinnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test(MSAT) distribution for schools using LTIT at eachgrade level with the appropriate MSAT distributionfor all Minnesota high schools. MSAT is administeredto virtually every Minnesota high school junior and isa good scholastic aptitude "bench mark" against whichto judge the representativeness of any Minnesota normgroup. After some slight adjustments, the distributionof MSAT means for schools using LTIT at each gradelevel very closely approximates the distribution ofMSAT means for all Minnesota high schools. TheseLTIT norms thus appear to be quite representative ofMinnesota students in general.
30
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forLORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Form 1, Level ERevised 1965eased on Fall Administration 1965
SEVENTH GRADEMales and Females Combined
RAW SCORESPer-
centileRank Verbal
Non-Verbal
I 3 +62616059
Total9998979695
"70-71
0968(17
131+128-30126-27124-25122-23
9493929190
(016561..
63
58
57
121120111)118117
8988878685
02
61
60
56
55
116115114113112
8483828180
iio
58
54
53
111..
110109
7978777675
57
56
52
51
108107
106105
7473727170
55
54
5. 0
49
104
i6
6963076665
534. 8
102101
10099
6403626160
52
bl
ii
46
i)!)
ixi
5958575655
50
40
45
9695
9493
5453525150
:43
44
ii)
92
9I
RAW SCORESPer-
centileRank Verbal
Non-Verbal Total
19481746.15
47
. .
46
429089
8887
44434211
10
iii
6io
8685
3938373635
ii
39
38838281
34333231
30
42
41
37
'36
35
807978
77
2928272625
40
io ii
.33
7675747372
2423222120
38
ii
:.36
32:31
30
7170
668
1918171615
:735.
:34
33
i)28
27
6766
64-656362
141312I110
.32
3130
26252423
6160
58-5057
55-5698765
292827
25-26..
21-2220II)1817
53-5452
49-5148
45-47432
1
2422-2319-210-18
1614-1512-13
0-11
43-4430-4235-38
0-34
31
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forLORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Form 1, Level ERevised 1965Based on Fall Administration 1965
EIGHTH GRADEMales and Females Combined
RAW SCORES RAW SCORESPer-
centileRank Verbal
Non-Verbal Total
9998979695
79 +*, 1-7875-76
74
06 +6564
(13
140 +138-39130-371:34-35
1:3:3
9493029190
73727170
62
61
00
13213031
129128127
8988878685
69
68
67
59
58
126125124123122
8483828180
66
6557
121120
1197978777675
64
6i
56
55
118117
116. . .
7473727170
62
6154
115
114
1136968676665
60
59
53
52
112111
1106463626100
5851 109
108t07
5958575655
57
56
50
49
106105
1045453525150
55
54
48
47
163
102. . .
Per-centileRank Verbal
Non-Verbal Total
4948474645
53 41.;
101100
99. .
4443424140
52
61
45
44
9897
9695
3938373635
50
49
43
42
94939291
3433323130
48
47
41
40
90898887
2928272625
40
45. .
36. .
86
858483
2423222120
44
4342. .
3736
35
8281807978
1918171615
41
:16
io
3433
3231
777675
73-7472
1413121110
38373615. .
3029282726
70-7169
67-6866
64-6598765
3433
31-323029
2523-24
2220-21
19
62-6359-6157-5854-5651-53
4321
27-2824-2621-23
0-20
1815-1713-140-12
48-5044-4737-430-36
32
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forLORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Form 1, Level FRevised 1965Based on Fall Administration 1965
NINTH GRADEMales and Females Combined
RAW SCORES RAW SCORESPer-
centileRank
9998979695
VorbalNon-
Verbal Total76 -1-71-7572-73
7170
61 -1-63
61-62
135 -1-131-31
130128-20
1270493929190
. .
6968
67
59
58
125-26
123-24122121
8988878685
06. .
65
81
57
56
120.. .
119118117
8483828180
(13
82
55
54
116
115114
7978777075
61
oo
1i3
113112
111
7473727170
th
58
th
51
110
icio
108
696867f'.1; 50
107
105
6463626160
56
5549
104
ioa
5958575655
54
102
101
1005453525150
53
52
47
46
99
Pe...-centileRank Verbal
Non-Verbal Total
.1948471645
51
th45
9796
1413121110
49 4464
.93
3938373635
43
4..7
43
42
02
9190
343332
1
30
18
15
41
40
8988
8786
2928272625
44
4:3
io
38
84
832423222120
42
41. . .
37
36
8281
8079
1918171615
4039
38..
35
34. .
78777675
73-741413121110
37
363534
3332
3130
727170
68-6966-67
98765
3331-32
3028-29
292827
25-2623-24
6563-6460-6257-5954-56
4321
2724-2621-230-20
21-2218-2015-170-14
51-5347-5041-46
0-40
33
RAW SCORES FOR SELECTED PERCENTILES
of 10, 25, 50, 75, and 90
Based Upon Minnesota State-Wide Norms (Revised, 1965)
for the
LORGE-THORNDIKE INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Males and Females Combined
SEVENTH GRADE Form 1, Level EPercentile Verbal Nonverbal Total
10 30.0 23.0 56.525 38.5 33.1 72.850 -17.7 -13.(1 90.675 56.2 51.0 105.590 63.1 56.7 117.1
EIGHTH GRADE Form 1, Level EPercentile Verbal Nonverbal Total
10 :35.0 26.5 65.025 4-1.7 37.6 83.850 54.3 47.3 101.775 02.6 55.1) 115.990 69.8 60.2 127.4
NINTH GRADE Form 1, Level F*Percentile Verbal Nonverbal Total
10 34.8 30.4 67.725 42.8 38.2 83.050 51.8 46.1 98.075 60.0 52.7 110.990 67.1 57.5 121.8
*Since Level F is used only at the Ninth grade, direct raw score comparisons cannot bemade with the other two grade levels.
34
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
MALES Grade 8
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rd. Reas. & A N centile
10099
98
97
96
3-5037
35-36
34
32-40
31
. .
45-50
44
43
42
44-1i0
46-48
45
59-118
57-58
56
55
55-100
54
53 .
52
68-90
65-67
63 -64
62
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
32
32
30
29
28
41
..
43-44
42
41
54
53
51
50
49
61
60
59
58
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
31
30
29
40 40
36 52
48
47
46
57
.
56
54-55
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
28
27
27
39
38
38
37
36
51 45 53
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
26
..
25
26
25
37
35
34
50
49
49
ii
52
51
50
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
29
36
48
42
.
99
48
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
23
24
23
32
2;
30
47 41
44
47
.
46
70
69
68
67
66
85
64
63
62
61
22 22
35
29
46
39
45
44
43
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
21
21
2.8
27
45
38 .
42
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
20
34
35
44
4337
41
44
39
55
54
53
52
51
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
(Continued)
MALES Grade 8
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. fleas. Rel. R ea s. & A N centile
5049484746
..
18-19
19
33
..25
4236
.
3850494847411
4544434241 17
1832
24
35
37
30
4544434241
4039383736
17
16
31 23
22
41
40 34 35
4039383736
3534333231
iC30
21
2039 33
34
33
3534333231
3029282726
..15
15
29
28 19
3832
32
.
31
3029282726
2524232221
..14 14
13
27
26 18
37
36
31
30
29
2524232221
20191817
16
13
12
2524232221
1735
30
26
28
27
201918
1716
15
14
13
1211
12
11
11
16
20
14
1817
i6
15
3428
27
2625..
24
1514
13
1211
10987
610
916
15.
0-14
ii13
0-12
33
32
..26252423
23
22.
21
109876
54321
..987
.0-6
80-7
36
3129-30
27 -280-26
2221
18-2012-170-11
io18-19
170-16
54
321
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
FEMALES Grade 8
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Rens. Abil. Reas. Rel. Reas. & A N centile
10099980796
.
37-5031;
35
30-4029
28
45-5043-44
42
47 -0045-40
44..
52-0850-51
49
03-10001-02
01)
58-59
.
04-0002-0:3
1;1
90
10009089796
9594939291
:34
33
32
27
2041
42-4341..
4038-39
4S
474045
5750
55
5058575055
95949392DI
DO
89888786
31
3029
25
40
39
373035
34
4.4
54
53
54
53
9089888789
8584838281
28
27 24
33
32
43
42
52
!ii
5251
56
..
858483S2
81
80
79
78
77
76
26 23 38
31
36 41
40
50
49
48
47
46
45
80
79
78
77
70
7574
73
72
71
25
223.7.
36
29
2839 49
.
44
75
74
737271
70
69
686766
24
23 21
27
26
3848
47
43
70
69686766
65
64
63
62
61
22 20
35
34 25 374. 6;
42
4. i
65
64
63
6261
60
59
58
57
56
21
19-20
33
24
36
45
4060595857
56
55
54
53
52
51
19 32
23
37
44
39
38
.
37
55
54
53
52
51
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)
FEMALES Grade 8
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rd. Reas. & A N cent&
5949484746
4544434241
18
18
31
30
22
..
2'1
21)
35
34
43
42
39
:35
5049484746
17
17 29 34
33
4544
434241
411
39383736
4039383736
3534333231
151619
15
28
19
33
32
41
32
14
27
2618
49 .
3.1
30
3534333231
3029282726
13
11 25
17 31
39
3829
31)
29282726
2524232221
12
24 1630 37
36
28
or
24232221
2019
18
17
16
11
2315
29
28
27
35
. . ,...
27
26
2019
1817
16
15
14
13
1211
10
13
12.
l 1
22..
20-211918
14
..;20
34
33
32
25
24.
1514
13
12
11
10
987
6
9
1017
13-1612
0-11..
12
25
31
3:0
29
232221
2019
10
98
7
6
5
4
32
1
8
7
60-5
80.7
11
0 -10
38
24230-22
2827
24-2616-230-15
18
17
0 -16
54
3
2
1
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)
MALES Grade 9
Per-centile
VerbalRees.
Num.Abil.
AbstractReas.
RAWSCORE
SpaceRd.
Medi.Reas.
CS& A
V+N
Per-centile
IOU
99989796
45-5043-44
4241
35-4034
33
47-5046
45
..57-6053-5651-5249-50
(12-6S60-61
59
. .
58-10056-5754-55
53
. .
77-9074-76
7372
10099989796
9594939291
4039
3S37
3244
43
48
47
5857
56
52
51
70-716968
67
9594939291
9089SS
87S6
36
35
34
31
3042
4645444342
5550
49
66.
656463
9089888786
8584838281
.
33 29 41 41
40
5448
.47
6261
60.
8584838281
8079787776
32
31
2840
36
38
53
52
465958
.
57
8079787776
7574737271
30
2927
39
37
36
45
4:1
56
5554
7574737271
7069686766
2826 38
3551
43 53
7069686766
6564636261
27
26
25
37
34
33
50
42
52
51
6564636261
6059585756
2524
3632
31
49
:11
50
.
49
6059585756
5554535251
..24
23
3536
39
48 iO48
47
46.
5554535251
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
(Continued)
MALES Grade 9
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Rees. Rd. Reas. & A N centile
5049484746
23
2. ;2
29
28
4739
.
45
44
5049484746
4544434241
2221
20
i:1:-)..;
.. 46
38
37
43
.
42
4544434241
4039383736
21
it
633
26
25:6
io
ii
46
4039383736
3534333231
18 -19
6
17
i,..)
ii
24i:t
30
39
38
3534333231
3029282726
i..7 1623
22
:11
34
37.
36
35
3029282726
2524.232221
..16
15.
30
2.9.
28
:6
ii
...
ii
2524232221
2019181710
15
i:t
ii
13
2726
20
6
4140 32
ii
32
ii
30
2019181716
151411
1211
ii
1.2.
ii
2524
22-232120
18
ii
39
ii37
30..
29
29
2827..
1514131211
109876
12
11
6
6
9
1917-18
16
14 -15
16
15
36
3534
28
2726
2625
2423
109876
543
21
..987
0-6
87
0 -60-13
141312
0-11
40
333231
29-300-28
24-2522-2318-219-170-8
21-222019
17-180-16
54321
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
(Continued)
FEMALES Grade 9
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile fleas. Abil. fleas. Rel. fleas. & A N centile
10099989796
..44-5042-43
41
36 -40
353433
47-5046
45
54. -6054-.6852-53.50-51
49
5352
..67-10065-6663-64
62
78 -9075-7773-74
72
10099939796
9594939291
4039..3837
32
31
4443
..
48474645..
51
50
49
61
60
5958
70-7169686766
9594939291
9089888786
.
36.
35
30 42 444342
41
48
47
57
SS
6564636261
9089888786
8584838281
34
33
32.
28
.41
40
SO
38
46
45
55
Si
,
60
8584838281
SO
79787776
31 27
40
36
3736 44 Si
..
5357
56.
8079787776
7574737271
30
29
26 3534
ii
.
43
42
52555
54
757473
7271
.7069686766
ig25
38
32
31
51
53
52
7069686766
6564636261
27
24 i'r
36 41
5051
SO
6564636261
6059585756
26
23 3628
iii
39
49
48
io
.
48
6059585756
5554535251
25
2422
27
26
41
3-i3
47
.
47
40
5554535251
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)
FEMALES Grade 9
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Rens. Ahil. Rests. Rd. Rens. & A N centile
50494847
46
..
23
3525
46 45
44
50494847
46
45
44
43
42
41
22
21
20
34 24
37
36
45
.
43
45
44
43
42
41
4039-
38
37
36
21
33
32
23
22
44
..
42
41
40
39
38
3736
35
34
33
32
31
19-20
18
19 io
21
35
34
43
42
40
3938
..
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
..
17
18
29
28
20
19
41
37
36
35
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
15-16
17
iC 27 18
33
32
iO 34
33
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
14
13
15
14
26
25
17
16
31
38
32
31
30
..
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
..
12
24
22 -23
21
1530
24
37
36
35
29
28
27
..
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
87
6
11
6
13
12
ii
20
19
17-18
16
14-15
14
13
12
28
27
'ii
3.4
22
32
26
25
..
24
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
9
8
7
6
0-5
10
9
8
7
0-6
12-13
11
0-.10
11
10
0-9
42
..
2524
23
0-22
31
30
27-29
21-26
0-20
22-23
21
19-20
17-18
0-16
5
4
3
2
1
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)
MALES Grade 10
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Rens. Rel. Reas. & A N centile
10099989796
46 -50
4543-44
42
. ,
37-4036
35
47-50
46
59-6057-5855-5652-54
64-6862-63
61
60
63-10061-6259-6058
.
82-9080-8178-7977
10099989796
95
94
93
92
91
.,
.,
41
40
..
34
33
45
44
51
50
49
48
..
59
58
57
57
56
55
64
76
74-75
73
7271
95
94
93
9291
908988
8786
39
38
..
43
47
46
5663
52
70
6968
9089
888786
8584838281
37
36
35
32
31
42 4543-44
42
41
55
54
51
.
6766
8584838281
80
79
78
7776
34
30
41
40
3963
50
46
65
.
64
63
80
79
787776
75
7473
72
71
33
32
40
38 52 48
47
62.
61
.
60
757473
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
31
30
28
39
37
36
51
46
59
58
70
69
OS
C,7
66
6564
63
62
61
29
..
27
35
50
45
57
56
55
..
6564
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
28
..
2
38 34
33 49
44
54
53
60
59
58
5756
55
54
53
52
51
27
26
25
37
36
32
31
43
48
43
52
51
.
50
55
54
53
52
51
6
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM I.(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
(Continued)
MALES Grade 10
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mecb. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rel. Rens. & A N centile
5049
48
47
46
25
2.4
3047
42
41
49
48
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
21
23
23 35
29
28
40
.
47
46
4544
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
22'
22
27
46
45
ao45
44
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
21
20
19
34 26
3843 35
34333231
30
29
28
27
26 18-19
ia33
25
24
44
43
37
30
42
41
.
40
39
30
29
28
27
26
2524
23
22
21
..
17
17
16
32
31
23
22
42
35
38
37
25
24
23
22
21
2019
1817
16
16 3021
2041
3436
.
35
34
20
19
18
1716
151413
12
11
..15
1.4
152S
26-27
19
18
4033
32
31
3332
31
1514
13
1211
10
9
8
7
6
13
12
..
14
13
12
11
25
24
22-23
21
20
17
15116
14
39
38
37
36
..
36
2928
30
29
28
27
10
98
7
6
5
4
32
1
11
10
9
8
0-7
10
9
6-8
18-19
0-17
13
0-12
35
..
34
31-33
0-30
27
26
23-25
13-22
0-12
26
24-25
22-23
20-21
0-19
5
4
3
2
1
44
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
(Continued)
FEMALES Grade 10
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Fleas. Abil. Fleas. Rd. Rens. Et A N centile
10099989796
..46-50
454443
-4036..3534
..47-50
95
53-G051-52
50..
56-6854-55
53
..72-10068-71
6766
80-9078-79
7770
10099989790
9594939291
4241
4639
33
3245
9.4
4948
46-474544
52
51
656463
62
73-7571-72
7069GS
9594939291
9089888786
383736
35
31
ia43
..
42-43
40-41
36
50
40.
48
61
60
66-6765646362
9089888786
8584838281
.
34
3.3
29
28
42 38
37.
36
59
58
61.
60
8584838281
8079787776
32
.
31 2741
35
3'4
33
4746
45
57
56
59
58.
57
8079787776
7574737271
..30
26
40
io
32
.49
55
54
5655
.
54
7574737271
7069686766
29
28
2531
3043
5353
7069686766
6564636261
27 3829
92
52
52
6564636261
6059585756
26
24
..
37
28
27 41
46
51
50
46
6059585756
5554535251
25
23 36 26
46
io
51 48
.17
46
5554535251
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forDIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)(Continued)
FE ALES Grade 10
RAWSCORE
Per- Verbal Num. Abstract Space Mech. CS V+ Per-centile Reas. Abil. Reas. Rd. Reas. & A N centile
5049484746
24
23
22
.35
45
24 .
50.
45
44
5049484746
4544434241
22 21
34
33
3849
4843
4544434241
4039383736
..21
20 32
23
22
3747
.
42
.
41
4039383736
3534333231
19-2031
36
2136 46
45
40
39
3534333231
3029282726
1819
29
28
2035
34 44
.
38.
3736
3029282726
2524232221
17
15 -16
IS
17
27
19
18
33
43
.
35
34
2524232221
2019181716
14
16
15
26252423
17
32
31
42
.41
40
33
32
2019181716
1514
131211
13
1214
13
22
20 -21
16
3636
38
313029
1514131211
10987
6
11
10..
12
11
19
17 -1815-1613-14
15
1429..
37
363534
28272625
109876
54321
9..87
0-6
169
0-8
0-12 1312110-10
28
27260-25
3332
30-3127-29
0-26
2421-2319-20
180-17
54321
46
Raw Scores for Selected Percentiles for
DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TESTS, FORM L
(Equated to the 1964 Revision of Minnesota Form A Norms)
Per-centile
VerbalReas.
Num.Abil.
AbstractRees.
SpaceRel.
Mech.Reas.
CS& A
V
& NPer-
centile
GRADE 8 MALES-RAW SCORES10 10.8 9.7 16.5 14.3 33.2 26.5 23.0 1025 14.2 14.3 27.0 18.6 37.0 31.3 30.7 2550 19.0 19.0 33.3 25.3 42.8 36.5 38.3 5075 24.8 24.8 36.3 33.7 48.0 42.3 49.3 7590 31.0 27.9 40.0 40.0 52.7 18.0 57.0 90
GRADE 8 FEMALES-RAW SCORES10 9.4 10.5 17.0 12.7 25.8 31.5 23.0 1025 12.5 13.9 24.7 16.3 30.2 37.3 28.4 2550 18.0 18.3 31.0 22.4 35.0 43.6 36.3 5075 25.0 22.4 37.3 29.0 39.8 49.6 44.7 7590 31.5 25.3 40.8 37.0 44.5 54.0 54.0 90
GRADE 9 MALES-RAW SCORES10 12.0 10.5 19.0 16.0 36.0 28.5 26.0 1025 16.3 15.5 30.0 21.7 42.3 33.5 34.5 2550 23.2 22.5 34.9 29.0 47.3 39.2 45.5 5075 30.0 27.5 39.4 37.5 51.9 45.0 56.0 7590 36.0 31.0 42.3 46.0 55.5 50.3 66.5 90
GRADE 9 FEMALES-RAW SCORES10 11.3 13.0 20.0 14.0 28.5 34.5 26.0 1025 10.4 17.3 27.8 18.6 33.0 40.3 34.3 2550 23.8 21.8 35.2 25.8 37.8 46.3 45.5 5075 30.0 26.0 38.9 35.0 43.3 52.0 55.5 7590 36.5 30.0 42.0 44.0 48.0 57.5 65.0 90
GRADE 10 MALES-RAW SCORES10 13.0 14.0 25.0 17.0 39.0 30.5 30.0 1025 18.3 17.3 32.7 23.0 42.8 35.8 38.5 2550 25.5 24.5 35.9 30.7 47.5 42.0 49.8 5075 33.3 29.7 40.7 38.3 52.3 48.5 62.0 7590 39.0 32.8 43.3 47.5 56.0 53.5 70.0 90
GRADE 1D FEMALES-RAW SCORES10 11.0 12.0 19.0 15.2 29.6 37.0 28.0 1025 17.0 18.3 27.8 19.0 33.6 43.5 35.5 2550 24.0 22.0 35.4 25.0 38.8 50.2 45.5 5075 30.3 26.5 40.0 32.5 4.1.8 55.3 . 56.0 7590 38.0 31.0 43.5 42.5 50.0 61.5 66.5 90
47
Minnesota State-Wide Norms
for
IOWA TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS
Males and Females Combined
1969
The Minnesota norms for ITBS are based uponscores of students who took the battery in Fall, 1969.
N (Schools) N (Students )
Grade 7 34 3,432
Grade 7 24 1,690
Not all schools which administered ITBS in Fall of1969 are included. A few were eliminated so that thefinal norm group represents a good cross-section of theState in terms of school size and geographical location.
Additional adjustments were made so that the dis-tribution of Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test(MSAT) scores in the schools making up the normgroup closely approximate the distribution of MSATscc.fies for the entire Minnesota population.
49
Min
neso
ta S
tate
-Wid
e N
orm
s fo
rIO
WA
TE
ST
S O
F B
AS
IC S
KIL
LSG
rade
7G
RA
DE
EQ
UIV
ALE
NT
Per.
cent
ileV
oc.
RD
GSp
el.
Lan
guag
eC
ap,
Punc
.U
sg.
Tot
.M
aps
Wor
k St
udy
Skill
sG
raph
sR
ef.
Tot
.A
rith
met
ic S
kills
Con
.Pr
ob.
Tot
.C
omp.
Per-
cent
ile
99 98 97 96 95
98-1
0996
-97
94-9
593
91-9
2
98-1
1395
-97
92-9
490
-91
..
100-
109
9997
-98
95-9
693
-94
103-
111
102
100-
.101
99-1
0693 97 96 .
.
97-1
0696 95 .
.
93-9
4
97-1
0195
-96
94 93 92
99-1
0897
-98
9694
-95
92-9
3
103-
110
100-
102
99 9S
100-
106
9S-9
995
-97
94 93
97-1
0595
-96
93-9
492 91
98-1
0896
-97
94-9
592
-93
91
93-1
0391
-92
9088
-89
86-8
7
93-1
0591
-92
89-9
088 87
93-1
0192
90-9
189 88
99 9S 97 96 95
94 93 92 91 90
90 89 88 8785
-86
8987
-88
.. 86 85
92
90-9
1
89
98-9
9
96-9
7
94
-95
95 94 93 92.
..
-92
91 -
92
9. 0 .
.
91 90 89 88
..
90-9
1
87-8
9
96-9
7
93-9
592
92 91 6:90
90 89 88".
87
90 88-8
9Si 8.
6
85 .
83-3
4
81:3
2
86 85 84 83 82
Si 86 85 84
94 93 92 91 90
89 88 87 86 85
84 83 82.
81
. 84
82 -83
81
87-8
886 ..
.
92-9
3
91
..
91 90 89.
88-8
9
3. 7 ..
87 86 35
85:8
6..
83-8
.4
91.
89-9
0.
S8
88 Si 86
. 86 85 84
84-8
5
3,3
8. 2
.
..
78-8
0
Si 8. 0
..
79
83 82 81
89 88 Si 56 S5
84 83 82 81 80
.. 7. 9
.
80 79 78
83-3
4
81.-
32
90 8. 9
.
8. 8
.
88 87
85:8
.6
85-8
6.
.
83-8
-4
84 83 . S2
..
81-8
2
..
85-3
7
S.5.
84.
83
8.3.
S2 gi
81 30
75-7
7
78 77
80 7... ..
7S
84 83 82 81 SO
79 78 77 76 75
77 -78
7...
77 7...
..
79-3
0
..
87
8556
83-8
4_
81-8
2
..
81:3
2
81 80 7. 9
.
79:3
0.
.
..
..
82-8
4
8... 8.... SO 7. 9
.
79 7873
-74
76 ..
75 ..
74
77 76
79 78 77 76 75
.1. en CI - CD1, 1 1, 1, 1-- CD 00 CO CO V:CC CO CO CO CC
..1. CD CI - 0cD CO CD VD COD
CC/ 00 1`.. CC LC3LC3 LC3 LC3 LC3 Le)
..1. C0 CI ... cz.LC3 LC3 V', LC3 LC3
01 00 1... c,c, an.1. .1. .1. .1. .1.
LC3 . ..1. VPt . C... Is ..--.. ...
C..
I.-
I-.. 1...
D CD
C1
,....I-
I .. COCC CC
LC3 ..1.CD <C,
C0
CACD
CI
CI)CO
C0 ClCO CO
CO ,o ...rCM . CO CO
. 0 a> coCO I-. t-
r'?CDI--
CO
CD
tv.. c...
GO
lLID
...",I--
, 1,.. 1-..
CI
vi..
1--
M
0 CC 00I-- CO CD
.-.
CD
1:-.
,--
..
C/ C-
00 ChCC CD
0D 1,. c0tv- tv. t-
000C..L.
C0vs oi -oo c.,.., oo
oo
ootr tot.... I-.I-..
1C3 11". 1.-
COC..
op .
cnt-
.)4Iv-
M CI1". t-
CO
-C.I--
..
co -rt-r .0 - t-rco t- not-- t--
..-. 0 CD1,-. C.. CD
C..
....I--
-.. oq t-r
r-- cot-
Cf, 1,- COCO CO CO
0COCO
C7ICO
t--- to .to to
titD
C23
co
co co
,.t,Lo . to .47
an .1. C.,V". t".. t.... CD GO
. 0t-v l- CO CO
'etc 0D CNI .--. 0r t V. t`. t 01 00 tv- tO LC3CO CO CO CO UP
.14 1 0 C4 .-. 0UP CO CO CO CO
0. 00 tv. UP cC3LC3 LC3 LC3 14.) LC3
Dc C0 CvI .-1 CILC3 L0 LC3 It" It"
er> 00 tv.. CO Lc3.1. .1. 14 ..:r "t
51
Min
neso
ta S
tate
-Wid
e N
orm
s fo
rIO
WA
TE
ST
S O
F B
AS
IC S
KIL
LS(C
ontin
ued)
Gra
de 7
GR
AD
E E
QU
IVA
LEN
T
Per-
cent
ileV
oc.
RD
GSp
el.
Lan
guag
eC
ap.
Punc
.U
st.
Tot
.M
aps
Wor
k St
udy
Skill
sG
raph
sR
ef.
Tot
.A
rith
met
ic S
kills
Con
.Pr
ob.
Tot
.C
omp.
Per-
cent
ile
44 43 42 41 40
... 64
62 61 ..
61-6
234
62-6
3
64-6
5 ....
61 -
63
63 62 61
.. 6566 -68
.
64
.. 65 64
63 62 ..
58-6
0
61 60
63 62
44 43 42 41 40
39 38 37 36 35
..62
-63
61
60 .. 59 ..
59-6
0
57-5
8
.
59-6
1
.
57-5
8
61-6
3
58-6
0..
..
58 -
60
60 59 58
..63
-64 .. .
60-6
263 -65
63 6,..)
.
..
63 62 61
61
59 -
60..
59 58 ..
61 .. 60
39 38 37 36 35
34 33 32 31 30
60 59
58 57.
56 ..
..
55
-56
56 55 54
.
55-5
7
.. -57
54 -57
.. ..
57 56 .. 55
.. 59 .... ..
61
59-6
0
60 .. .. 59
..
57:5
8
..
54-5
7..
57 56
59 5S ..
34 33 32 31 30
29 28 27 26 25
.. .
57 -
58
55 54 53 ..
52 -
54
50 -
51
53
51 :5
2
.
52-5
4 ..
52-5
3
..
49-5
1
54 53 52 ..
-58
57 -
58 .. ..
60-6
2
..
56-5
9
57-5
8
56 ..
58 57 .. 56
55 -56
..
55 54 53
57 .. 56 .. 55
29 28 27 26 25
24 23 22 21 20
..55
-56
52 51 50
48-4
947
49-5
0
48
48-5
1.. ..
45-4
7
.. ..
47-4
846
51 50 49.
48
..54
-56
53
.. ..
54 -55
54 -55
52-5
3
55 54 53
53-6.
550
-53 .. ..
52.
51
.. 54 53
24 23 22 21 20
IZEI'
9E-I Z
s1-9Eli1'-6EIt
E-i;
9E-9£
SE-L
E01-6E
6Z-IZ
I E-0£
ZE
5E-'E
E
EE
-ZZ
5E-'E
SE-9E
O-6t
E-Z
ZL
E-9£
6E-SE
I EIJI-
67,-EZ
JE-D
EZ
E
9E-E
E
SZ-Z
Z,
ZE
-1;27
LE
-EE
67,-0ZC
lg
EE
-1E9E
-E
LZ
-2. I
611-SZ
I E-O
E
EE
-ZE
EZ
-SIc7 -11IZ
-9Z
61-91I1-07,6Z
-ZZ
LZ
-SZ
ZZ
-9 I1Z
-EZ
LZ
-9Z0E
-SZ
1Z-91
I Z-Z
Zsz-cg
6Z
6Z-8I
1£-0EFE
-EE
9E-9E
LZ
-ZZ
I E-SZ
EE
-ZE
9E-9E
IZEI'
c9- IS6
Z1-
Et.
1-1-
Si-
91'
It7,1.
If-EP
....0t-9£
ItE
E-7,1-
11
ZEEt
EP
Si'91-
LE
-9E6E
-SE
OE
..Z
6 -SE
L -E
SE-L
E01-6E
'
Et-I ttt
tE9EL
E-9E
SE65
OE
-Sr,
EE
-I£
oc-sr
1-E-I 5
L'E
lEE
E
SE-l- E
9ESE
-LE
EE
-OE
tE
9E-95
LE
8E-L
E0E
-6EIt7,6
8E-L
E01-6EZ
t-11'E
t.9-PE
S92.86
OI
IIZ I
El
11
LI'
St61
91.
9ELt
..11.-IP
.
51-
Lt 9F
09-SP
..LE
SI-61-
Z t- I tE
tII
96 51
. .....IS-SI.
..
LE
-9E
..SI'
OIt7,E
Si-I1-
95-E
LE
0E -SE
!.E-9E
..SE.
11--65
6EIt-O
P..
Et' -'L
E.
6E-SE
OkII-
2,"E
Et
ti'9691
L1 --91,
SE09-6E
OI
IIZ I
El
EI
9191LI
SI61
05ISZ5
St6E09..
.
6E-9E
ZS -I9
09I5Z9
Lt
61-SE
19-09
...
E9-Z
9
..
09-61
Z9-I9
.
51-
91.
LI'
ItE
t-73.
9-11.
..Et-Z
E......
tt969ELt
Et
II9696
LI.
81'66
Z5-1S
. .
1'S-ES
9191LI
SI61
Min
neso
ta S
tate
-Wid
e N
orm
s fo
rIO
WA
TE
ST
S O
F B
AS
IC S
KIL
LS
(Con
tinue
d)
Gra
de 8
GR
AD
E E
QU
IVA
LEN
T
Per-
cent
ileG
raph
sW
ork
Stud
y Sk
ills
Ref
er.
Tot
alC
once
pts
Ari
thm
etic
Ski
llsPr
oble
ms
Tot
alC
ompo
site
Per
cent
ile
99 98 97 96 95
116-
119
.113
-115
109 -112
111-
117
108-
110
106-
107
104 -105
109-
115
107-
10S
105-
106
104
103
110-
117
107-
109
106
104-
105
102-
113
100-
101
98-9
9
96-9
7
103-
112
102
100-
101
99 98
103-
113
102
100-
101
99 98
99 OS
97 96 95
94 93 92 91 90
104-
108
..
102-1
03
100-
101
102
101
100
103
102
101
100
95
93
-94
92
97 96 95 94
97 96 95 ..
94 93 92 91 90
89 88 87 86 85
196:
103
..
98
-99
97
99 98 97 96
98-9
. 9
96-9
7
90-9
1
89 88
93 92 61 90
94 93 92 91
89 88 87 86 85
84 83 82 81 80
97-9
9
-95
. .96
95 -96
..
65 94 9.3
95
93 -94
..
86-8
7
85
S9 88
90 S9
84 83 82 81 80
ad x r- )a dr)I- t-- 1.-- I- I-dr cd:, at -0t-- I- I.- I-. I- CI0 00 I t., ,n
to to to to to..,. ,..1, ,.., -.,o to to to to
c, L., ,.... ..., ,,OD 140 E.D U.: I0
-,. ,., c., _ =V) ,,o ,r) m I0
00 I.- 4.000 00 00
.n C7 CIC.I., CO
CO 'ID I- ID
00 00 00
.,a . - cr,0,zo4, cr,
CO
01
.
co
oo r--
-
......
to 2
=0t
COr-oo1-
....,--0 co.,
I.- 'J001,-1 I-
t-
I,
c,
in ?,t. t
-rr-co1-
oo
-
el, ...Co CO
,,ad
ytCO
C, C '/:,CO 00
I:,C.'ad00
CO
CO
1..-cdo . 0?
00
CO, CO
.t--00
. 10 1. ,V) 00
-ri 0?
00
00
CI -CC 00
Cl --X X 0 adX I--
CO.000 I-
co co r- to .nt-- r- t-- I- r-- -r co csi -.OI-- t-- l' t-- t v, 00 r- co ,co= tO tO C, :0-r co or - coCOO CO ,.. CO
co> oo t-- co Lto'> '> 17 tr) 11
.r. co ol -. co11 11 If; in 11
55
Min
neso
ta S
tate
-Wid
e N
orm
s fo
rIO
WA
TE
ST
S O
F B
AS
IC S
KIL
LS
(Con
tinue
d)
Gra
de 8
GR
AD
E E
QU
IVA
LEN
T
Per-
cent
ileG
raph
sW
ork
Stud
y Sk
ills
Ref
er.
Tot
alC
once
pts
Ari
thm
etic
Ski
llsPr
oble
ms
Tot
alC
ompo
site
Per
cent
ile
49 48 47 46 45
.. ..
77 -
78
78 ii 76 6
78 77
75-7
6
73-7
4
. . ..
73 .. 72
75 74 ....
....
49 48 47 46 45
44 43 42 41 40
. .
75-7
6
.: I 5
73-7
4
i6 75
72 71
.70
..
..
70-7
1
71 70.. 72 .
.
44 43 42 41
39 38 37 36 35
ii
72;7
3
..
72 . .
74 73 72
69
6i-.
68
..
63-6
9
. .
69 68 67
71 .: 10 69
39 33 37 36 35
34 33 32 31 30
.. .. .. .. . .
71
66:7
0
71.
70
. . .. ..
65
-66
66-67
. . ..
65
..
. . 68 67
34 33 32 31 30
IgFt
Z[-LZ
fir -E6
96-Ct
St-LP
Ot-IF.
Et-lt
S6-b6
L6-96
EF.-SG
9E-6t
LE
It-1g
E-gt
9f-66
6E-Ig
Z6-Ot
i-Et
CP
..
E-4g
It -CE
Et-ZP
0£-ZZ
8E-IE
6£
E5 -O6
IZEI,
C91_S6
6t-IS-OS
ZS
EC
.
tS
St
6OS19
7,C
It-SE
9P-ZP
Lt
09-L6
-.
4g-IS
L'-9t6t -St
OS1g
ES-ZS
""
96 -66
81'-4t
0S4.,4
SP-ft
-
81-9,
..
ZS-fit
S9L86
01
II
gl
El
ti
SS9S
LS
89
-fiC
ES
tgcc
9g.
"
IS-St
--
ZS
Eg
gg-tg
99
{.c
gg
9S
LS
8S
"
ZS-IS
SS-ES
--
ES
..
SS1S
..
Of
II
Z1
EI
tI
91
91
LI
SI
61
--
0919
4gSC
6C
..
gg-ES
LS 9S
LC
SS
fig
6S
0919
g9
4S-9C
6S-89
"
.
g9-6s...-
..
CI
91
LI
81
61
OZ
Ig
gg
Eg
tg
7,9
E9
69
09-.
19
..
-'
09-89
0919
..
E9
t9
S9
19-09
£9-Z9
S919
£9
..
L9-$9
OZ
1g
Zg
EZtg
gg
9g
Li,
Sg
fig
99..
99
g9
£9
69
g9-19
-.
..
99-£9
Z9
t9-£9
99
19
8969
"
49-99
89
....
IL-89
SZ
9Z
LZ8Z6g
Min
neso
ta S
tate
-Wid
e N
orm
s fo
rIO
WA
TE
ST
S O
F B
AS
IC S
KIL
LS(C
ontin
ued)
Gra
de 8
GR
AD
E E
QU
IVA
LEN
T
Per-
cent
ileV
ocab
.R
DG
Spel
l.C
apita
l
Lnn
duad
e
Punc
t.U
sage
Tot
alM
aps
Per-
cent
ile
99 98 97 96 95
108-
116
105-
107
102-
104
100
-101
107-
116
105-
106
103-
104
102
..
111-
120
110
108-
109
106-
107
105
114-
120
113
112
111
110
111-
118
109-
110
108
107
108-
115
107
105-
106
..
103-
104
108-
113
106-
107
105
104
112-
117
I 1 1
109-
110
103
106-
107
99 98 97 96 95
94 93 92 91 90
..
98 -
99
96-9
7
101
99-1
0098 97
104
103
102
100-
101
99
109
i;;7,
-1 0
8
..
106
105
104
103
102
100
-101
..
102-
103
101
100
69
105
104
103
102
94 93 92 91 90
89 88 87 86 85
94
-.95
93 92 91
96 95 94 93
98 97 96 95
105-
106
103-
104
102
101
100
99
.
..
97-9
9.. ..
98 97 96 95
101
99 -
1C ,.
89 SS
87 86 85
84 83 82 SI
SO
90.
88 -
89
87
92 91 66
..
64
..10
1-10
2
160
98 97 96
93-9
6.. ..
94 93 9296
-98
84 33 82 81 so
0919Z
S291-9
TS
38
9LIL
9L-11.
a
3L LL
1S-6/.
..OS
Z8-13
..
8L-L
L
9/.
9/.
LL
SL
0919Z
9E
S
1-9
9S99L
98969
1S -ES
98-98
8/.
U.
0818-SL
..
1-8-38
ES
98-1-S08-6L
LL81.
6!
6/.
OS
9999L9
8969
09193929t9
SS L3
..18
68..2.8
..
98-68
....
9S-98
98
68-LS
..
18
28-680818
..IS38
091969£91-9
9999L
98969
.1-8
98
....
..
SS .836-06
..9818
68E8
28
99991.9
8969
01.
ILEL
£Lt!.
06-63
16
98..LS
88
SS-9816-68
1-6-96.96
LS-98
68-88
1-8
9898
1-8
98
CIL
ILZL
84tL
949?r r.
816L
26-36
.
96-1-6
680616
68
36-06
E6-66
26-1.6
..L
6-96.
66-86
16-06
26-36
1.8SS68
98' '
92,
9LLL
8/.61.
Min
neso
ta S
tate
-Wid
e N
orm
sfo
rIO
WA
TE
ST
S O
F B
AS
IC S
KIL
LS
(Con
tinue
d)
Gra
de 8
GR
AD
E E
QU
IVA
LEN
T
Per-
cent
ileV
ocab
.R
I)G
Spel
l.-
Cap
ital
Lan
guag
e
Punc
t.U
sage
Tot
alM
aps
Per-
cent
ile
49 48 47 46 45
76 75
74 ..
73
75-7
6
73-7
4
78-7
9
75 -
77
74-7
673 .
.
75 74 73
SO 79
49 48 47 46 45
44 43 42 41 40
.. 74 .. 73
72
70-7
1
..
71
-72
..
72-7
4
.
71-7
3
70
.. -...
69-'2 ..
727 71 70
77-7
844 43 42 41 40
39 38 37 36 35
.. .. ..
71-7
2..
69 .. 68 ..
69-7
0
66-6
8
70-7
1
C.,- 67
68-6
9
6765 -68
: -68
..
69 68 67
75 74 ..
39 38 37 36 35
34 33 32 31 30
..
69
-70
..
67 66 ..
.. .
64-6
5
..
65 -66
64
65-6
6
64
.. ..
61 -
64
66 65 64
71 -73
34 33 32 31 30
9601I IZI
1-1
SI91L
ISI6iO
Z1gggE
Z
1-gg9Z8Z
EE
-Lg
9E-PE
01.-1.E
3P-I1-
6P-9P
CS-09
2.9-P9
09-89
1-9-19
L9-29
02[89
FE-9.11
9g-9E8E
-L1:
OP-6E
ZP-IP
1- I-
P1-
LP-91,
81-
61-
09119.
ES
I-93995Sc LC
0919Z9
E9
SE-9E
ZP-62
LP-E
P
I9-8P
Z9
94
09-L9
92-928E
-LE
EP -Z
1-
SP-9P
09-6P
Z9-I9
P9-E9
94-99
89-L9
09-69
19
29-7.9
LE
-2gO
P-82
2P-It
91-11.
61-LP
IS-04
cc
9.9-Pc'99
84-L9
!. Z-61
SE-8g
92
6E-L
EZ
P-OP
9P-gtL
P-9P
6P-8P
0914
Z5
ES
P4cc1.9-94
69-89
19-5919-09
E9-Z
92919
9E-821
6E-9E
01E
P-IP
6P-81,04L
9Sc
09-64
19
Z9
E9P9
49
PE-E
Z92-926E
-LE
ZP-01-
19-09114
49-24
L4-99
89
09-69.
es-19
29
49-P9
L9-99
89
9S601IIg 1
ETI91LI
8161OZ
IgZZ
EZ
9ZLZ
SZ6Z
Gra
de E
quiv
alen
ts fo
r S
elec
ted
Per
cent
iles
for
the
IOW
A T
ES
TS
OF
BA
SIC
SK
ILLS
Bas
ed o
n M
inne
sota
Sta
te-W
ide
Nor
ms
(197
0)
Mal
es a
nd F
emal
es C
ombi
ned
Gra
de 7
Perc
entil
eG
rade
8Pe
rcen
tile
1026
6075
9010
2660
7590
Voc
abul
ary
46.0
57.0
67.0
76.0
85.0
54.0
66.0
76.5
85.7
96.0
Rea
ding
43.0
52.5
65.0
75.5
85.0
51.0
62.7
75.0
86.5
96.5
Spel
ling.
.. ...
... .
......
.38
.050
.065
.377
.789
.047
.060
.075
.589
.599
.0C
apita
lizat
ion
39.0
49.7
67.5
84.5
94.0
44.0
59.0
78.7
95.5
105.
7Pu
nctu
atio
n35
.049
.066
.881
.092
.042
.059
.076
.392
.010
3.0
Lan
guag
e U
sage
34.0
49.0
66.3
80.3
89.0
43.0
56.7
74.0
89.0
99.3
Lan
guag
e T
otal
40.0
51.5
66.0
78.5
87.5
48.0
60.0
75.5
89.0
99.0
Map
s44
.555
.268
.477
.890
.051
.065
.680
.592
.010
2.0
Gra
phs
44.0
56.0
68.6
81.5
91.5
51.0
64.8
79.0
92.0
102.
4R
efer
ence
s41
.555
.368
.080
.788
.550
.065
.378
.991
.799
.3W
k. S
tudy
Ski
lls T
otal
....
46.5
56.0
68.0
79.0
87.0
54.0
66.0
79.0
90.5
99.5
Ari
th. C
once
pts
45.0
54.5
66.5
77.3
86.0
53.0
62.0
75.5
89.0
100.
0A
rith
. Pro
blem
s39
.851
.061
.871
.881
.047
.561
.073
.082
.591
.0A
rith
. Tot
rl,
45.0
53.0
63.3
74.0
82.0
53.0
62.0
73.5
85.0
94.0
Com
posi
te...
.47
.055
.065
.375
.583
.455
.065
.075
.386
.094
.5
Minnesota State-Wide Norms
for
STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TESTS,AD LANCED BATTERY
Males and Females Combined
The Minnesota norms for SAT( AB) are basedupon scores of students who took the battery in Fall,1969.
N ( Schools ) N (Students)
Grade 7 8 1,224
Grade 8 22 3,488
Schools included in the norm group were chosento be as representative of the State as posiO)le in termsof size and geographical location.
The distribution of Minnesota Scholastic AptitudeTest (MSAT) scores for the students from the normgroup schools is almost identical to the MSAT distri-bution for all Minnesota Juniors indicating that theSAT norm group is probably quite representative ofthe entire Minnesota student population.
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY
Forms W, X
Grade 7
GRADE EQUIVALENT
Per- Para.centile Mean.
99 116-12798 113-11597 11296 110-11195 108-109
Spell.
120-127118-119116-117
115113-114
Lanj.
.111 -119100-110
108107106
Arith.Comp.
92-11589-9186.83
.
84-85
Arith.Conc.
118-129116-117114-115111-113107-110
Arith.App1.
116-129113-115111-112
108-110
Soc.Stud.
115.129114
112-113111
Sci.
117-129116
114-115112-113110-Ill
Per-milk
9998979695
9493929190
107
106105
111-112108-110
. .
106-107
105104
103102
..82-83
80-31
105-106
10391-102
104-'107108-110
167106
103-105
108-109
106-107..
9193929190
8988378685
.
104
102-103100-101
104-105
102-103
99-101
101
100
9998
78-79
76-7796:98
92-65
98-103
91 -97
102
100-.101
96-99
104-105
102 -103
89q8
8.;86
85
8483828180
99
96-9894-9592-93
96 -68
93 -95
96-9793-95
86
72-75
I:8.-71
88 -91
86-3792-65
100-101
98 -99
8483828180
7978777675
..90-91
89
86-88
90-9. 2
88-89
88
86-87 66 -67
85
82 -84..
85-90 89-91
87-88
86
96 -67
92-95
7n78777975
7473727170
..84-85 86-87 84.
85
82-8364.65
80-81
..
82-3484 -85
82-83
90-9187-S9
85.-8. 6
74737271
70
6968676665
82-83
80-81
84-85
82 -8380.-81
79 62-63 .
80-81
..
.
83-84..
6968676665
6463626160
78-79
77
80-81
76
78
77
.. 78-79 79-81 79
78
77
.
80-82.
77-79
64636261
60
5958575655
76
74-75
78
76
75
74
60 -61
76-77 76 -78
. .
76
72 -75
76
.
75
5958575655
5453525150
72-73
76-77
7i-75
73
58-5974 -75
72-74
69 -71
5453525I50
64
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY
Forms W, X
Grade 7(Continued)
GRADE EQUIVALENT
Per- Para.centile Mean.
49 70-7148474645 68 -69
Spell.
72-73
Land.
71
Arith.Comp.
Arilh.Conc.
72 -73
Arilh.Appl.
Soc.Stud.
71
70
Sci.
67-68
Per-centile
4948474645
44434241
40
66-6770 -71
69
66-67
56-57
09 -7172 -73
69
68 65 -66
4443424140
3938373635
..65
ai
68-69
67
65 67
66
63-64
3938373035
3433323130
..63..62
06
64 -65
63
626160
54-556-6
6:71 64-6562
34333231
302928272625
..60-61 62-63
,.5958
57 51 -536-1-65
63-66
63
62
61
60-61
.
58 -59
2928272625
2423222120
58-59
.,56-57
59-6156
5554
63
6
6
6
.
56-57
2423222120
1918171615
54-55
..53
57 -5853
5251..
43-50
60-61
60-62
58 -5958
56-57
55.
54.
52-53
1918171615
14131211
10
5250-51
..48-49
54-56
51-53
5049
.47
!4,-.47
57-59
5754-55
53
52
50 -51.
46 -49
1413.1211
109876
5
.
46-47. ,
44-4542-43
48-50
46-.4744-45
..45-46
4442-43
41
42-44
36-.4154-56
51 -53
53-50
49-52
50-51
4648
47
ie..
987
65
4321
40.41..
35-3923.34
41-4338-4034-3720-33
4038-3933-3720-32
36.-3833-3522-32
48-5044-4724-43
44 -4840-4336-39
46-4743-4439-4232-38
44-4542-..d40-4129-39
4321
65
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forSTANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY
Forms W, X
Grade 8
GRADE EQUIVALENT
Per- Para.centile Mean.
99 123-12998 121-12297 12096 118-11995 ..
Spell,
126-129125124123122
Land.
120-129118-119116-117
115114
Arith.Comp.
121-129119-120117-118115-116112-111
Arial.Canc.
127-129126
124-125
122-123
Arith.App!,
125-129123-124
121-122
Soc.Stud.
12.1-129122-123
121
120119
Sci.
122-129121
119-120
118
Per-centile
9998979695
91939291
90
116-117
114-115113
120-121
119118
112-1131 1 1
110109
108-111104-107
100-103
120-121
118 -119
119-120
116-118
115
118117
115-116
117116
114-115
94939291
908988878685
112
110-111
117
110115
108107106
105
90-99
92-95
116-117
114-11.5
113-114
111-112
114
113
112
112-113
110-111
898887
8(1
8584S3
8281
80
108-109
107106'
113-114
111-112
108-110
104103102
. .
89-91 111-113108 -110
111
110
108 -1(19
106:107
84838281
807978777675
1-05
104
100-.107
104 -105
101
..100-
99
86-88
84 -85
107-110
105 -106
103-.104 101 -107
108-109107
106
104-105
102.'103
7978777675
74
737271
70
102.-.103
.
100-.101102 -103
98
96 -97
93-95 82 -83
90 -102
104 -105
102-103
100:10174737271
706968'57
6665
9996-9394-95
. .
92-93
99-101
96-98
90-92
8988
80-81
96.-9. 8
98-103100 -101
96.-99
98-99
.
96-97
6968676665
64636261
60
90-91.
8993-95
90-92
86-87
8584
78-.79
92-95
8-.91
91 -97 92-95
89-91
92 -95
90 -91
646362(11
60
5958575655
86-88
..84-85
8-.89
86-87
82-83
80 -81
76 -77 86-87
858-'90
87-88
86
. .
87-89
.
85 -86
5958575655
54
53525150
..82-83
..80-81
84 -85
79
7877
72-75
82-84
84-85
82-83
.
83-84
54
53525150
66
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ADVANCED BATTERY
Forms W, X
Grade(Continued)
GRADE EQUIVALENT
Per- Para.centile Mean.
494S 78-79474645 77
Spell.
82-83
SO:8 i.
Land.
76
ii74
Arith.Comp.
68-71
Arith.Conc.
sii:81
Arith.Appl.
82-84
Soc.Stud.
80-81
o78
Sci.
80-S2
..77-79
Per-cenlile
4948474645
4443424140
76io
7S
73
72
6G-67
78-.7979 -81
77
76
..7675
44434241
40
3938373635
74-75
..72-73
76-77
74-75
7170
69
..
64-65
76-77
76-7874-75
72-73
.
72-74
69-.71
3938373635
3433323130
70-71
68-69
72-73
70 -71
6866-67
66
62-63
74-7574-75
71
7i)
(i6
67 -08
3433323130
2928272625
66.-07
65.
68.-69
67
64
63
6.2.
60-61
58 -59
72-73
69 -71
72-7368
67
65.-96
63.-64
2028272625
2423222120
..64
63
6.6
6-95
60.-615958 50 -57 66.-68
67-71
..66
64 -6563
62..
60-61
24232221
20
19
18
1716
15
6.2.
60 -61
..
62.-93
5756
55
5454-55
6.-.65
6363-66
..6261
60
...
58 -59
50-57
5554
52-53
.
50-5148-49
4746
19
'81716
IS
14
13
12
11
10
9S
7
0
5
141312II10
58-59..
56-5754-55
..
59-61
57 -58
54-56
535251
49-5048
51.-6362
60 -61
60 -62
58 -59
..
5958
.56-5754-55
5352
50-5149
987
65
5352
50.-5. 1
48-49
51 -53
48.-60..
4746
4342
48-50
45.-47..
57.-69
54-56
57
53 -50
4321
46-4744-4540-4327-39
46-4741 -4538-4020-37
40-4136-3931-3520-30
42-4439-4136-3822-35
..51-5348-5031-47
49-5244-48
8-43
4844-4742-4332-41
44-4542-4339-4121-38
4
32
1
67
Gra
de E
quiv
alen
ts fo
r S
elec
ted
Per
cent
iles
for
the
ST
AN
FO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST
, AD
VA
NC
ED
BA
TT
ER
Y
Bas
ed o
n M
inne
sota
Sta
te-W
ide
Nor
ms
(197
0)
Mal
es a
nd F
emal
es C
ombi
ned
Gra
de 7
Perc
entil
eG
rade
8Pe
rcen
tile
1025
5075
9010
2550
7590
Para
grap
h M
eani
ng48
.058
.770
.786
.010
5.0
53.5
65.0
80.0
103.
311
2.5
Spel
ling
50.0
60.5
74.0
88.0
105.
05.
1.0
67.0
82.7
104.
011
7.5
Lan
guag
e47
.0.
57.0
71.5
55.5
102.
048
.062
.076
.508
.510
8.5
Ari
thm
etic
Com
puta
tion
-12.
851
.057
.865
.773
.349
.058
.069
.684
.010
0.0
Ari
thm
etic
Con
cept
s57
.063
.773
.781
.79N
.059
.069
.081
.710
3.0
117.
0A
rith
met
ic A
pplic
atio
ns...
54 -
063
.074
M83
.795
.557
.570
.082
.410
4.0
115.
0So
cial
Stu
dies
52.0
61.0
71.3
86.0
104.
054
.066
.781
.010
6.0
115.
0Sc
ienc
e48
.058
.069
.091
.010
4.7
52.0
63.0
81.5
101.
311
3.0
Minnesota State-Wide Norms
for
THE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Forms X-4 and Y-4
Full Length and "Class Period" Versions
Revised 1965
Grades 9, TO, II, 12
Males and Females Combined
The following tables contain Minnesota norms for the Iowa Testsof Educational Development. These norms are based on the scores ofMinnesota high school students tested in the fall of 1964.
Grade N ( Schools) N (Students)9 155 11,555
10 138 9,108
11 125 8,565
12 54 2,942
These norms were revised in 1965 by the Student CounselingBureau at the University of Minnesota, which administers the Minne-sota State-Wide Testing Programs. Forms X-4 and Y-4 were first usedin the Program in the fall of 1964, replacing Forms X-3 and Y-3, uponwhich the previous, 1956, Minnesota norms were based.
The representativeness of these norms was checked by comparingthe Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test (MSAT) distributions forschools using ITED at each grade level with MSAT distributions forall Minnesota high schools. MSAT is administered to virtually everyMinnesota junior each year and thus serves as a good scholastic apti-tude "bench mark" against which to judge the representativeness ofany Minnesota norm group. From this and other checks the 1965 ITEDnorms appear quite representative of Minnesota students at each re-spective grade level.
The scores used in the norms are standard scores. Although thevarious forms of ITED are equated through the use of standard scoresntl a single norm table should suffice for all forms, enough differences
exist between Forms 3 and 4 so it is not advisable to use these tableswith the old Forms X-3 and Y-3. Users are cautioned that equalstandard scores on two or more subtests does not necessarily represent
69
equivalent performance (See pages 33-34, "How to Use the TestResults," 1TED Manual).
When 1TED was restandardized nationally in 1963, the publishersadopted the commonly accepted convention of computing norms tothe midpoint of the class interval. Therefore, the same convention hasbeen adopted in the preparation of these norms.
The Iowa Tests of Educational Development, Form 4, have ninesubtests and a Composite Score.
Test 1 Understanding of Basic Social Concepts
Test 2 Background in the Natural Sciences
Test 3 Correctness and Appropriateness of Expression
'west 4 Ability to do Quantitative Thinking
Test 5 Ability to Interpret Reading Materials in the Social Studies
Test 6 Ability to Interpret Reading Materials in the Natural Sci-ences
Test 7 Ability to Interpret Literary Material
Test 8 General Vocabulary
Composite The Composite Score is based on a combination, of thescores on Tests 1-8. Each test receives approximately equalweighting in determination of this score.
Test 9 Use of Sources of Information
70
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONPL DEVELOPMENT
Forms X-4 and Y-4
Revised 1965 Based on Fall Administration 1964
NINTH GRADE
Males and Females Combined
StandardPercentile
Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test StandardScore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. C 9 Score
27 .. 09 . , 99 99 . . . . 90 99 2720 99 08 911 08 98 90 90 98 98 2625 98 96 98 97 96 98 98 OS 07 25
24 97 94 99 97 96 95 97 98 96 95 2423 96 91 98 96 94 93 96 97 95 93 2322 94 87 97 9.1 91 90 94 95 92 91 2221 91 83 94 02 88 87 92 93 90 88 2120 88 78 92 SO 85 84 88 90 86 85 20
19 84 73 89 85 81 81 84 87 82 82 19IS 80 07 84 SI 77 78 79 82 77 77 1817 75 61 78 7S 72 74 75 75 72 73 1716 69 53 71 73 67 69 69 68 67 OS 1615 02 46 63 68 62 64 03 61 61 02 15
14 .53 41 55 61 57 58 56 53 53 56 1413 '45 36 47 54 51 51 51 46 46 50 1312 39 32 40 48 44 45 44 40 39 42 1211 3.1 26 33 40 38 38 38 33 32 35 1110 29 21 26 31 30 31 31 27 26 30 10
9 22 17 20 24 22 20 25 21 20 26 98 17 12 15 '18 15 19 19 15 15 21 87 13 8 12 12 10 13 13 11 10 17 70 8 5 8 8 6 9 9 8 7 12 65 6 4 6 6 3 7 6 5 4 7 5
4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 3 2 4 4:3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 32 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 21 1 1 1
71
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Forms X-4 and Y-4
Revised 1965 Rased on Fall Administration 1964
TENTH GRADE
Males and Females Combined
StandardScore
PercentileTest Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CTest
9Standard
Score
30 . . . . . . 99 . , 3029 99 .99 98 . . 2928 99 no 96 98 98 no 66 98 99 2827 98 97 98 97 97 98 98 97 97 2720 97 95 06 96 95 97 98 96 95 2625 05 91 09 95 94 92 96 97 94 92 25
24 93 87 08 93 92 89 94 95 92 89 2423 90 81 96 90 89 86 92 03 88 86 2322 87 76 93 88 85 82 90 90 85 82 2221 83 69 00 85 80 78 86 86 80 78 2120 79 63 86 81 76 74 81 81 75 73 20
19 73 55 81 75 71 7(1 75 76 69 68 1918 68 49 75 70 60 60 69 69 63 62 1817 62 43 67 66 61 61 64 61 57 57 1716 55 36 50 60 55 56 58 53 51 51 1615 48 29 51 54 50 50 52 45 45 46 15
14 40 25 42 48 46 44 45 37 38 40 1413 32 21 35 41 40 38 40 31 32 34 1312 27 18 28 36 34 32 34 26 25 28 1211 23 14 23 29 29 27 29 20 20 22 1110 19 11 18 22 22 21 23 16 15 19 10
9 14 8 13 16 16 18 18 13 11 15 98 11 6 10 12 11 13 14 9 8 12 87 8 4 7 8 7 9 10 7 5 9 76 5 2 5 5 4 6 7 5 3 7 65 4 2 3 4 3 5 5 3 2 4 5
4 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2 43 2 . . 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 32 1 . . . . . . 1 21 1 . . 1
72
Minnesota State-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Forms X-4 and Y-4
Revised 1965 Based on Fall Administration 1964
ELEVENTH GRADE
Males and Females Combined
PercentileStandard
ScoreTest Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 CTest
9Standard
Score
33 99 3332 08 .. 3231 69 . . 66 97 .. 3130 99 : . 98 99 08 91.1 96 99 30
29 97 99 97 97 06 99 98 94 98 2928 95 97 .. 96 95 04 98 117 93 96 2827 93 05 99 04 93 92 96 96 91 92 2726 90 91 98 92 91 89 94 94 89 87 2625 86 80 90 89 88 85 92 92 86 83 25
24 82 80 93 87 84 80 88 89 82 77 2423 78 74 90 83 79 75 85 85 78 r - ,)- 2322 73 67 85 79 74 70 81 81 72 67 2221 08 60 79 70 68 64 76 76 67 62 2120 03 53 74 71 63 60 69 70 61 58 20
11) 57 46 67 64 58 56 62 63 55 53 1918 52 0 60 59 5° SL 56 55 9 47 1817 46 :14 53 56 48 47 51 47 43 42 1716 40 27 45 50 43 42 40 40 37 37 1615 34 22 :30 44 39 37 40 33 32 32 15
14 27 19 29 38 :34 32 :34 27 fi7 27 1413 21 10 23 33 29 27 30 22 21 22 1312 18 13 111 28 25 23 25 18 17 18 1211 14 10 15 22 21 19 21 14 13 14 1110 11 8 11 17 16 14 17 11 9 12 10
9 8 ti 8 13 11 12 13 8 7 10 98 6 4 6 9 8 8 10 6 5 8 87 4 3 4 6 5 5 6 4 3 0 76 2 2 3 4 3 4 5 3 2 4 05 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2 5
1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 . 1 43 1 .. 1 1 321
21
73
Minnesota Stat,f-Wide Norms forTHE IOWA TESTS OF nDLICATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Forms X-4 and Y-4
Revised 1965 Based on Fall Administration 1964
TWELFTH GRADE
Males and Females Combined
StandardScore
PercentileTest Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CTest
9Standard
Score
5 99 i54 98 143 97 i32 99 : : 66 96 321 99 .. .. 98 99 98 95 II0 98 99 .. 96 98 96 66 93 66 30
29 96 98 .. 94 95 95 99 97 91 97 2928 93 96 99 92 93 93 97 06 89 94 2827 90 93 98 89 90 90 95 94 87 89 2726 87 89 96 86 87 86 92 92 85 83 2625 , 83 93 83 S3 81 SO 89 SI 78 25
24 77 77 89 80 79 76 85 85 77 72 2423 73 71 84 76 73 71 81 81 71 67 2322 67 64 78 73 67 66 77 75 66 62 2221 C2 5S 73 69 61 61 71 69 61 57 2120 56 51 67 64 56 57 64 62 55 51 20
19 50 44 60 5S 51 53 56 56 49 46 1918 44 38 53 .7.3 46 49 50 49 43 40 1817 39 32- 45 49 41 44 45 41 37 35 1716 34 25 38 44 36 39 40 34 31 30 16:5 28 20 30 39 :33 35 34 27 26 25 15
14 22 17 24 33 29 30 29 21 22 21 1413 17 14 18 28 24 24 25 17 17 17 1312 13 11 14 24 20 20 21 14 1:3 13 1211 11 9 11 18 17 16 17 10 9 10 1110 9 6 8 13 13 13 13 8 7 8 10
9 6 5 6 10 11 10 10 6 5 7 98 4 4 4 7 6 7 7 5 3 5 87 3 2 3 5 4 5 5 3 2 4 76 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 3 65 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 5
4 1 1 1 4:3 32 21 1
74
Standen) Scores for Selected Percentilesof 10, 25, 50, 75, 93 for
THE IOWA TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Forms X-4 and Y-4
Based on Minnesota State-Wide Norms (Revised 1965)
Males and Females Combined
NINTH GRADEPer-
centile 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9Per-
centile
10 6.4 7,5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.2 6.2 6.7 7.0 5.6 1025 9.4 10.8 9.8 9.1 0.4 8.2 9.0 0.7 9.8 8.8 2550 13.6 15.6 13.4 12.3 12.8 12.8 12.2 13.6 13.6 13.0 5075 17.0 19.4 16.6 16.4 17.6 17.2 17.0 17.0 17.6 17.5 7590 20.7 22.8 19.3 20.3 21.7 22.0 20.5 20.0 21.0 21.7 90
TENTH GRADEPer-
centilePer-
centile1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9
10 7.7 9.7 8.0 7.5 7.8 7.2 7.0 8.2 8.7 7.3 1025 11.5 14.0 11.4 10.4 10.4 10.7 10.3 11.8 12.0 11.5 2550 13.3 18.2 14.9 14.3 15.0 15.0 14.7 15.6 15.8 15.8 5075 10.3 21.2 18.0 19.0 19.8 20.2 19.0 18.2 20.0 20.4 7590 23.0 24.8 21.0 23.0 23.3 24.3 22.0 22.0 23.5 24.3 90
ELEVENTH GRADEPer-
centilePer-
centile1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9
10 9.7 11.0 9.7 8.2 8.7 8.5 8.0 0.7 10.2 9.0 1025 13.7 15.6 13.3 11.5 12.0 12.5 12.0 13.6 13.7 13.6 2550 17.7 19.6 16.6 16.0 17.4 17.8 16.8 17.4 18.2 18.5 5075 22.4 23.2 20.2 20.8 22.2 23.0 20.9 20.8 22.5 23.6 7590 26.0 25.8 23.0 25.3 25.7 26.3 24.5 2-1.3 26.5 26.6 90
TWELFTH GRADEPer-
centilePer-
centile1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9
10 10.5 11.5 10.7 9.0 9.2 9.0 9.0 11.0 11.2 11.0 '1025 14.5 16.0 14.2 12.2 13.2 13.2 13.0 1.1.7 14.8 15.0 2550 19.0 19.9 17.6 17.2 18.8 18.2 18.0 18.1 19.2 19.8 5075 23.5 23.7 21.4 22.7 23.3 23.8 21.7 22.0 23.7 24.5 7590 27.0 26.2 24.2 27.3 27.0 27.0 25.3 25.3 28.5 27.2 90
75
STA
NFO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST, H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
BA
TT
ER
Y
Min
neso
ta N
orm
s
Form
s W
, X
Gra
de 9
ST
AN
DA
RD
SC
OR
E
Per-
cent
ileE
ndi.
Num
.C
omp.
Mat
hem
atic
sPa
rt A
Tot
.R
UG
Scie
nce
Part
AT
ot.
Soc.
Stud
.Sp
ell.
Art
s &
Bus
S.
Tec
h.H
uman
EC
M).
Com
p.Pe
r-ce
ntile
99 98 97 96 95
66-8
465 64
62-6
361
68 -
SO
66-6
764
-65
63 62
64 -
SO
63 62 61 ..
66-S
465
63-6
461
-62
60
66-8
665
62-6
461 60
63-8
262 61 60
6S-S
266
-67
65 64 63
65-9
060
-88
65-S
464
5964
6358
63..
6262
6156
-57
61
99 OS 97 96 95
94 93 92 9 90
60 56 58
61 60 59
60 59 58- ..
59 .. 56 ,
57
ii6 .. 5S 57 56
59 58 th.
62 61 GO
59
60 ..55
60
59 5S
:59
54
94 93 92
91 90
89 88 87 86 85
.. 57
58 57
57 56
56 55
56 55
.. 56 57
..5S
5.7
53.. 57
"
56
..
52..
S9
SS 87 56 85 S4
S3
S2 81 SO
84 83 82 81 80
56 555.
6. 55
.. 55
5 -1
55 54
54 ..56
5556
.- 34.. :.
.
01..
53..
OS
ISi,9i:-.:
tg
.... .. ..
-
..91-
OS
St-
St2..w
91,
LI.
0 9
IS
.
61'
09
..St
fit
OS
ISZS
£S1-9.
94992.9
8969
99992.9
Sg69
.
. .It
.:.
..91- St
. .
61-
.
61,
.
St
09I97,9
£91-9
IS
. .
It..
61-
09
.
.
61,
.
81-
61.
..
..
..
.. . .
..
..
09..
09191,9
£9t9
S9992,9
8969
..ZS
.. ..StES 09
..16
..
0909
09
Z9
.
..
19
..
IS
9999L98969
02.
ILVEL
11
.. ..fit
. .
PS IS
Z9
29
1'9
.
IS
IS
Z9
19
..
E9
..ZS
ES
Z9
..
ES
OL
IL62.
EL
11
92.
9LLL
22,
62.
....
OS 6,9
SS
. .
99
69
ES
.
49
Z9
.
£9
..
. .
1-9
9
.
I'S
SG
9L
LL
Si,6L
I
STA
NFO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST, H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
BA
TT
ER
Y
Min
neso
taN
orm
s
For
ms
W, X
Gra
de 9
(Con
tinue
d)
ST
AN
DA
RD
SC
OR
E
Per-
cent
ileE
ngl.
Num
.C
omp.
Mat
hem
atic
sPa
rt A
Tot
.R
DG
Scie
nce
Part
Alo
t.So
c.St
ud.
Spel
l.A
rts
&H
uman
Bus
&E
con.
Tec
h.C
omp.
Per-
cent
&
49.
48 47 46 45
.. .. .. 4i
48 ..
. 49
. 45
46 .
47 . .47 ..
46 .
.. 44 ..
49 ..
49 48 47 46 45
44 43 42 41 40
.. .. 46
47 . 46
.. ..
.
44
4546 ..
48
..
45
43 42
48 .. 47
44 43 42 41 40
39'
38 37 36 3545
45
48
43
44 43
45. 45
.. 44
. 41
.. . 46
39 38 37 36 35
34 33 32 31 30
.. 4444
47/
42 41
. 42 .
44 43
4443 .
.
40
. 45
34 33 32 31 30
Ii;Ek
1E-9Z
EE
-ZE
11;
SE
Li-9.7.,
6Z-ST
,
OE1£
ZE
.
1:1:
IL91".
91:
6i -tiO
EIt.i."4;
0E-9.i,I E
ZE
EP,
6i-iii,O
E11:
Z1:
Ii-CF.
97,
Si!l;:.:-9i;
67,O
E-6i
OE
JIt:
ZE
-9.i;E
E
tE9E
9Z-9Z
OE
-Li:
ZE
- 1 E
tt919ZL
Z
IgEt,
C91-36
9ELi'.
SEE
EPECE
91:
LC
PCSE9E
Ct.
tE9t
IZ
i,I E
.I
EE
i",Fj
tE,
EE
Ot
LE
.
SE.
it9£9£
67,-97.O
EICE
E-Z
E
99I36
1111
it1:1
PI
61:
OP
Li;
St
91:
LE
SI:
I E.
iSE
91:
I9E
IIE
LE
6E01,
II,
4£St.
PC929£LE
01IIit£1PI
9191LI
SI61L
i:
SE6t:
.
--
6E
.6E
I
ItSE
SI:itE
P
62017
SCOE
'
017
9191LI
SI61
0i,IiiiCZPi,
itEt
SE6E
Ot
01'
It
01,
It
i
otOP
6E."
PP91,
i6.
Itgl
OZ13
ZZCZ
1Z
9.Z
93Li
SiSi;
VI-
Iti,P
ikEt.
it
It
OP
91.
317
Et
.Et
9393L
,."
8Z63
STA
NFO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST, H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
BA
TT
ER
Y
Min
neso
ta N
orm
s
For
ms
W, X
Gra
de 1
0
ST
AN
DA
RD
SC
OR
E
Per-
cent
ileE
n41.
Num
.C
omp.
Mat
hem
atic
sPa
rt A
Tot
.
.
RD
C,
Scie
nce
Part
AT
ot.
.
Soc.
Stud
.
,70
-82
67-6
9
116
65 64 63
,62 61 60
Spel
l.
70-8
26s
-60
66-6
765 64 63 62 61
Art
s &
Hum
ati
67-9
066 65 64 t1
3
62 61 60 59 SS 57
Bus
&E
con.
66-S
S63
-65
62 61 60
Tec
h.C
omp.
Per-
cent
ile
99 98 97 96 95
70-8
468
-69
67 66 65
74-S
O72
-73
71 7068
-69
71-8
069
-70
6S 67 66
70-8
468
-69
67 66 65
70-S
667
-60
66 65
69-S
468 67 66 65 64 #1
3
99 OS
97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90
94 93 92 91 90
64 63 62
67 66 65 64
65 64 113
64 63 62 61 60
64 63 62 61 ' 606
89 88 87 86 85
61 60
63 62 61 60
62 61 ..
59 5S
56-5
7
62 61
89 8S 87 86 85
84 83 82 81 80
59 - -
58'
59
.. 60
- -
59 58 57
59 SS
'..
59 58i
110
I
59
60 ..
84 83 82 81 80
9919
E9
_
99 1;9 09 19C
69
[19 tc[9 19
7.9
1:9
1-9
99 99 E9
99 7.9,9
S9
69
01 99IL 1:9
7.2
EL CC
1-P
CL
9299
8262 69 cc
19
Ir
ES
E9
1-9
(19
OS ES
IS
12
02
g9ES
I-c
19
16
7,9
7,9
7,9
CC
29,
8362
1999
99
IS
89
7-9
99 E9
E9 09197,9
E9P9
99
1-9
P2 9999L98969
Sc
Lc
cc
cc
29
99 02ILZLEL
fiL
6949.
9292LL8262
ST
AN
FO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST
, HIG
H S
CH
OO
L B
AT
TE
RY
Min
neso
ta N
orm
s
For
ms
W, X
Gra
de 1
0(C
ontin
ued)
ST
AN
DA
RD
SC
OR
E
Per-
cent
ileE
ndl.
Num
.C
omp.
ML
Aze
mat
ics
Part
AT
ot.
RD
GSc
ienc
ePa
r.. A
Tot
.So
c.St
ud.
Spel
l.A
rts
&H
uman
Bus
&E
con.
Tec
h.C
omp.
Per-
cent
ile
49 48 47 46 45
5I)
.. 5052 . ..
4949
50 ..51
)
4948
51
49 48 47 46 45
44 43 42 41 40
. .. 49
.. 4951
48 . ..
48 .ii.
49
49.. .
4847
.". 50
44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35
39 38 37 36 35
4848
50 ..
47
.
.
4648
48 47
.. 47.. 49
34 33 32 31 30
.. 4747 46
49
.
46 4545
47
it;
4634 33 32
4831
I30
IIEF
ting6I-SI
6Z-91
9E-F E
IC-O
EJet E
LE
""E
E
SOSi. re
PC
0E-SI
I E-I E
1I-EE
SE
6I-Si;zx-O
E11tE
LI-II
6Z-8z
1E-O
EIE
SI-III E
-GI
1 E -C
E
EE
-9ISE
-PEL
E-9E
SE
0E-9.Z
EE
-1£PE1-..:E
SI6Z
-911 E
-OE
1E-Z
1:
1gEt
CtiL86
6E9E
9f:-SEL
EO
FL
ESE
IPSE
..19ELSE
n91L
ESE
PE-E
£-
SE..
91LE
SE91LE
81
61OP
ItZP
91L
ERE
6E
t E9E
-SEL
ESE61
S9L86
0111I IZ
1PI
-
61OV
IF61
11-It
OP
61OP
GEOP
IP..
SE61
61OP
-.EP
Pt
OP..IP
OPIt
DI
IIIIEL
PI
SI91
8161
PP.
.
..
IV
SPE
P
ItEP
..CP
Et
OP"
..IPCl'
.SPC
P.£P
IP....Et
SI91LI
8161
OZ1 /
IICZ
iI
It.
.
tt"
Et
91-..
..SP
....PP..
..
.
-
PP''
"Et
....
EP-
9tLP
.'
PP
-
PP37IIIIE
IPI
Si;91L
ZSI61
Pt..
LP
..-'
..
SP..
..
SP..
91.
..
SP9P
.PP
Pt..
..
-
...."SP
St-'
SP..91 ,
SI9IL
iSI61
STA
NFO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST, H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
BA
TT
ER
Y
Min
neso
ta N
orm
s
For
ms
W, X
Gra
de T
T
STA
ND
AR
D S
CO
RE
Per-
cent
ileE
ndl.
Num
.C
omp.
Mat
hem
atic
sPa
rt A
Tot
.R
DG
Scie
nce
Part
AT
o!.
Soc.
Stud
.Sp
ell.
Art
s &
Hum
anB
us &
Eco
n.T
ech.
Com
p.Pe
r-ce
ntile
99 98 97 96 95
74-S
472
-73
70-7
169 68
76-5
074
-75
72-7
371 70
76-8
074
-75
73 72 71
72-8
771 70 69
74 -
S470
-73
68-6
9
67
72-8
670
-71
69 68 67
75-8
774 73 72 71
71-8
269
-70
GS
67
72-8
269
-71
68
71-9
070 69 6S
.
67
73 -
5871
-72
7068
-69
75-8
474 73 72 71
99 98 97 96 95
94 93 92 91 90
67 66 ..
69 68 67 66
70 69 68 67
6S 67 66
66 65
66 65
70 69 68 67
66 65
64
67 66 65 64
66 65 64 63
67 66
70 617
68 67 66
94 93 92 91 90
89 88 87 86 85
65 64-
..
.. 65 64
66 65
..
65 .. 64
64 63
64 636 65
63 6263 .
.
_. .. 62 61
65 64 63
65-
..
64 63
89 S8 Si 86 85
84 83 82 81 80
63 . .6- 2
-
61
63 62
64 63
63
62 61
62 61
64 63
6i
62 61
..
60 59
62 61
62 61
84 83 82 SI 80
E9
559515s5699999195969
14j
cc
EC
cc
cC
1505IS
Gc
Ec
1519
ycFc
Cc
1-9
rc
CC
99YC
599
S9
9995
6S
SS
092.,2
Cc
9519
99ec
99LC
:V
9
15-99gc
99
9C.2
6999
192,9
99S
c4(4
991909
Sc
S9
S9
s;(-:19
69
IrS
c.09
59S
c
01.
ILSc
I9S
c09
6951
6519
69
692.9
tic(IV
69.CL
6509
91.
(1909
LL09
Sc
09S
!.03
096!
co
ST
AN
FO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST
, HIG
H S
CH
OO
L B
AT
TE
RY
Min
neso
ta N
orm
s
For
ms
W, X
Gra
de11
(Con
tinue
d)
ST
AN
DA
RD
SC
OR
E
Per-
cent
ileE
nd].
Num
.C
omp.
Mat
hem
atic
sPa
rt A
Tot
.R
DG
Scie
nce
Part
AT
ot.
Soc.
Stud
.Sp
ell.
Art
s &
Hum
anB
us &
Eco
n.T
ech.
Com
p.Pe
r-ce
nt&
49 48 47 46 45
.. 53 ..
52.. 54
.. .. 54 .. ..
. .. 52
.
52
.. 54 .
52
. ..
53 .. 52
.. 5053
.
54 .
49 48 47 46 45
44 43 42 41 40
52 .. ..
51 .. ..
53 .. ..
53 .. 52
51 .
5153
51 .. .. ..
.. .. 51
- .. 49
52
- ..
53 -
44 43 42 41 40
39 38 37 36 35
51 50
50 .. .
52 51
. .. 51
50
.
49
50 ..
52 51 ..
.. 50 ..
. .
.
..
50
..
48
51 .. ..
52 . 51
39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30
34 33 32 31 30
.. .. 49
.. . 49
.. .. 50
.. 50
48 .
49 .. 48
.. 50
. .
49
.. . 49
47 .
50 .. .. .
49
. 50
9E-2E
LE6E
-St
i,E-!-:(7.
2E-E
E10:
Lt:
I%-2
1-E-7.1:
112-c/-:
IX
1 E
tE-tE
! f1-E
-EE
111;
St.-1it,
EE
-1E(12-1
E-11Z
.:
7,E
2E-E
E9E
02-2i,E
E- 1 t
14-1-E91:
1E
.E-S
it,
tE24;
9E
II;-511E
-ZE
LE-9E
81:
0E-11r,
Et-1Ett
91:41E
6g-2 t,E
E-02
1-E
I
9I t
6
SE
6E01-
SE
6E01-
st62O
tt
LESE
6%
9ELESE
U
SE
W-
1.t:
SE6E
Ot
SE
-LEot -6E
II-
1;t.
61:
01-
I 1-
SE
01-
9S6
01It
11-11-
It01
1121-
tU
I-It
21-II-
7 , 1 .I I
71-E
t11-
71ttt
21-7,1
El
t IE
1-
Et
Et
VI-
t 1-
t:t-E
tE
lt 1
91t 1-
tt11-
111-tt
I
91
! I21-
(.11-L I
9 tE
11-91-
St
61(.1
91-9t
61
07.9 t
21-V
I-9t
(El
I i!7:Z
:
tr.
117
Ilg17SF
-
LI-
lit-S
t
t
!I t-
.1 1-
st
9t-
S t
91-
LI-9t
III-
LI-t1 1-
St
'111-
SI-
LI-
SI-
17,
74;
Et,
LI-t7,
""!
St
,Li,
11Z
s61-
01'
co
ST
AN
FO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST
, HIG
H S
CH
OO
L B
AT
TE
RY
Min
neso
ta N
orm
s
For
ms
W, X
Grv
ds 1
2
ST
AN
DA
RD
SC
OR
E
Per-
cent
ileE
na'N
um.
Com
p-M
athe
mat
ics
Part
AT
ot.
RD
GSc
ienc
ePa
rt A
Tot
.So
t.St
ud.
Spel
l.A
rts
&H
uman
Bus
&E
con.
Tec
h.C
omp.
Per-
cent
ile
99S0
-84
79-8
077
-80
77-8
776
-86
74-8
676
-87
I74
-82
76-S
273
-90
75-8
875
-84
9998
78-7
978
74-7
676
74-7
572
-73
7572
-73
74-7
57-
174
00 00
97 674
-77
72-7
377 76
73 7275 74
72-7
371
70-7
170
7471 70
72-7
370
-71
, , - ..
71
73 7'43
97 9695
7571
7369
7370
7172
95
9471
7411
869
7269
69r-
-69
7194
9370
744
7267
686-
893
9273
6971
7111
870
7002
9169
7270
-6)
167
676S
.67
6991
rks
7169
6iI
6990
415
6666
117
6589
ss70
6869
6665
.14
S769
6765
87Si
;67
6867
Ii5
115
S685
6s
6.i
6-1
6;67
Si;
I-84
i66
6661
S3I
6667
61iI
6"-
1
82:
6582
SII
(V66
6563
663
66SI
SI)
6480
09I9
7,9
9919
99..
"69
"cc
.
9999.
.
"..
'69
99..
"9.9.
.
"99
9999
9999L9
"L9
0919
Z9
£91'9
cc09498969
1.9
..09
..
99!.'
99L909
99.
.
99'
..
4989
4989
..
89
. .
89
9999L9Sc
69
0919
Z9
991-9
8969
"19
L989
8969
"89
1969
L9..
..
L9
89
"69
..
696c
69
0919Z
9E
969
9999L9S9
69
.
09
..
..
Z9
690919
6909
9989
69
69..
09..
0919
09..
0919
0919
99
99L98969
W.
ILZL
EL
12
19099
..
99
0919
"Z9
[91-9
0919
"19"..
aE9
1999
a99Z
9.
oz,ILZ
4E
LtL
949LLL8.!6L
I-9
S9
1'9
99Z
,999
Z9
179
99
- "Z9
. .
Z9..
1-9
E9. .
t999..
£91-9
9L9L/28L6L
ST
AN
FO
RD
AC
HIE
VE
ME
NT
TE
ST
, HIG
H S
CH
OO
L B
AT
TE
RY
Min
neso
ta N
orm
s
Form
s W
, X
Gra
de 1
2(C
ontin
ual)
ST
AN
DA
RD
SC
OR
E
Per-
cent
ileE
ngl.
Num
.C
omp.
Mat
hem
atic
sPa
rt A
Tot
.R
UG
Scie
nce
Part
A
54
Tot
.
58 57 56 55 54 53
Soc.
tSt
ud.
54 53 52 51 30 51
'
Spel
l. ---
5.c
54 5.3 52
,
I ,
Art
s &
Bus
Ir.
Tec
h..
Hum
anE
con.
Com
p.-
--
- -
--
- -
- -
54
55
53
54.5
4-57
-" "
53
5155
52
- -
- -
- -
-'
5051
51
Per-
'ce
nt&
-49 4: I,
,45 4
I
V.:
41 u.
'
39 38 3: 3e.
34 33 '12
31 30
49 48 47 46 45
56 .. 55 ..
..
54 -.
.. 54
.. 55 ..
54 '', 3
44 43 42 41 40
.. -. ..
54 ..
.. . . 53
53 52
54 --
..
52-
51
53 52 51
39 38 37 36 35
.. ..
53 - -
52 ..
51
53 ..
..
50
34 33 32 31 30
..
52 .. ..
..
.
51 ..
52
49
30 49
IZ1:I-
St4-S6
9E-S:
ISE
-LE
01--61:It
GZ
-£1:
Ll. O
EO
V-t£
NE
..1E
(11:-ZI
Z£-SZ
FE-1E
SE-E
t9£-SE
OE
LE
LC
Gin;
ZE
-OE
FE-E
tSE
0£-S46£1£
SC9E
.
1£-SZZ
E6C
-1:£9£-SE
11:-SZ
FE-Z
ESE
LE
-9£
a-sr,S£-E
£9£
1 £-SlS£-Z
t91L
£
l£-Sl££
9E-6£
L£
1E-SZ
6E-Z
£L
£-S£O
P-8£
11;Et
ItEt-
ti
GE
Ot
£1-11FtSt
61-8£O
FI6
Z6
SE6£I F-O
tr,tE
l-
OI
LE
Gi.:14.:
OF
LE
61-81O
P
IF16
It6£-S£
OF
IF
SC6E
Of-
SE-L
£O
6-6£Itl6
8161OPIt
RC
61Of-
ItIt
ItgPIt
S9L86
01i
I ISt
Z I
i
El
t1Ilt
91-
Lt
£tIFSF
ttSF
ItZI-
Et
It
..Et
Ft-SF
116
ItIt
IF
aEt
.
Et
ttSt
.Zt.IP
ItPtSP
.FtSt96
0111
11It61
SI91I
..1,1
5l61or.1
IZ1-Z.
EZ
tZ
It14
St6tof-
96Lt.
St9F
96IFSt
SF.OF
PI-
SF
.
96L6
St
FtSP96
LP
91-
Lt
Lt
SI91LI
SI61
Gt
OSIS
IF
SF66
Lt.
St
GP
OS
ItO
F
""66.
OS
St
£16-
GP
8666
Ol
1Z
Zg
El
tg
SE:401
.1Z
sz61:
tc:( .
-0. c
£(.-:
SF66
OS
61
ISZ;(1
SF"IFst
..--
IS
66"OS
..OS
OSIS
Si:9ZL
gSi;6g
Standard Scores for Selected Percentiles for the
STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, HIGH SCHOOL BATTERY
Based on Minnesota State-Wide Norms (Revised 1968)
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
End. Num. MathComp. A
RAG SCIA
Soc.Stud.
Spell. Art & Bus. & Tech.Hum. Econ. Comp.
Per-centile
GRADE 9
10 34.0 37.0 39.0 35.0 34.0 35.7 35.5 35.0 33.7 38.7 1025 42.3 2.0 45.2 39.8 40.3 41.7 41.7 41.0 38.8 43.5 2550 47.7 48.5 49.8 58.0 40.4 17.2 47.6 46.3 44.5 49.2 5075 53.3 53.3 53.7 52.0 52.3 51.7 54.3 51.3 49,6 54.2 7590 58.0 59.0 57.7 56.5 57.5 57.0 59.0 58.0 54.0 58.5 90
GRADE 10
10 40.0 40.0 42.3 39.0 37.5 39.0 35.5 39.0 38.3 91.3 1025 45.0 45.0 47.2 44.0 43.5 44.8 44.8 45.2 44.0 46.7 2550 50.8 511.4 52.6 49.6 49.8 50.5 50.8 49.8 48.8 51,6 5075 56.3 57.3 58.3 55.5 50.3 56.3 57.0 55.5 54.0 57.5 '7590 61.7 63.5 62.7 61.7 61.5 62.0 62.3 61.0 59.3 63.0 90
GRADE 11
10 11.0 40.5 42.3 40.5 91.0 41.0 42.0 40.7 41.0 42.0 1025 47.3 47.0 48.3 46.3 46.7 47.0 47.3 44.8 47.7 48.0 2550 53.8 52.4 55.0 52.6 53.0 52.7 53.3 50,4 53.3 54.5 5075 59.7 59.0 61.0 59.0 59.3 58.7 59.0 57.0 59.0 59,3 7560 65.3 66,0 67.11 64.7 64.5 64.0 64.0 63.0 65.5 66.0 90
GRADE 12
10 43.5 43.0 41.5 41.0 41.5 40.5 43.5 43.0 45,5 44.7 1025 50.0 49.5 49.0 47.0 48.0 48.2 49.5 47.7 52.0 50.0 2550 56.3 55.0 55.0 54.3 54.8 54.7 55.6 54.3 58.4 55.8 5075 63.0 64.0 62.7 61.6 61.3 61.6 62.5 61.5 63.5 G3.5 7590 G8.0 71.0 68.3 65.8 66.5 66.5 67.5 66.0 69.0 68.7 90
92
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for theMINNESOTA ENGLISH TEST
1965-66ELEVENTH GRADE
MALES AND FEMALES, COMBINED
These are the (dela' norms used for N11:1 in the Nlintiesota !lig!' Schoolstatt..1Vide Testing Program.
hese norms are based on 1,009 juniors from fourteen Nlitinesota hiF,11set ools selected front those %vhich took NIET the loll of 1965 as part of (lieNliimi.sota High Sulam] Slitte-Wide Testing Program. Site of junior classesiii these selected high sdiools ranged from 12 to 132. The Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test (MSAT) scores of the schools t.tking N1E the fall of1965 were carefully studied and the g nip selected to be representative ofall Minnesota high who'd juniors. Studies of groups selected because theare representative of the entire state on NISAT have shown that we obtainnorms reprsentative of the entire state on other tests. Because the fourteenschools are representative oo N1SA, as shown below.. we are ((Iii t(' con-fident they are also representative on NIET.
Minnesota Scholastic Aptiltidi Test 1)ata on Fourteen Iligh Schoolsin NlET Norms Croup and fur All ittnnas
91"-iJuniors from Fourteen Schools All Juniors
56fiinNIET Norms Group
Number 1,009 61 919Mean .. 3.1.7 34.7Standard Deviation . 14.1 1.1,7
For a further description of MET see: Swanson, Edward O., "The NE-lit--sot:I English Test, Student Counseling Bureau Bulletin and Occupatio.lalNewsletter, 17:7-8, January, 1965.
Percentile ! PercentileRaw Score Rank Raw3S5core
58 -i- 1
::11:11
Rank
579998
59 979654-55
::: ii11911
53 95 4452 9-I :i951 93 29 355(1 92 2S :i249 27 2848
8911 :
Di 24II88 25 21
46 87 21 IS45 85 23 IS44 83 22 1243 MI) 21 942 78 20 7
iii1,)1)
76 19 574 18 471 17 3
:38 (9) 15-16 237 66 1-14 I:i6 (13
These norms were furnished through the courtesy of the Student CounselingBureau, Office of the Dean of Students, University of Minnesota.
93
Norms for
MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)
Form C'
Norms A. EnteringB. All Minnesota
freshmen to Minnesota collegesluniors, tested Winter
PercentileA B
tested as highof 1969-70.
RawScore
_
school tuniors.
RawScore
PercentileA B
....__ . ________75 119 1111 38 511 6874 99 99 17 54 6673 09 00 03 52 6472 99 99 i5 40 6171 99 90 (4 6 59
71) 99 99 i3 42 5669 99 ¶6) i2 30 5468 99 119 il 36 5167 99 99 01 32 4866 99 99 29 29 4565 99 99 28 26 364 99 ¶6) 27 23 1063 98 99 211 21 3762 08 98 25 18 3461 97 98 21 16 3160 96 97 23 15 2859 05 97 22 13 2558 94 116 21 11 2257 93 96 2(1 9 2056 92 05 10 8 1755 91 94 18 6 14
54 90 93 17 5 125:3 80 92 16 4 1)
52 88 01 15 3 751 86 90 14 3 li50 84 89 13 2 4
40 82 88 12 2 348 81) 86 11 1 247 78 85 10 1 1
46 76 84 9 I I
45 73 82 8 1 I
44 71 80 7 1 1
43 69 79 6 1 1
42 66 77 5 1 1
41 6:1 75 4 1 1
40 61 73 :3 I 1
39 59 71 2 1 1
1 1 1
°MSAT, Form C, was first administered to all Minnesota high school juniors in1966-67. It superceded MSAT, Form A, used with juniors 1957-58 to 1965-66.
°These are the "official" percentiles included on the reports sent to high schoolsand colleges. These norms are equated to the original MSAT, Form A, normsbased on 3,401 entering freshmen to the University of Minnesota in the fall of1959. Thus, these percentile ranks are equivalent to the MSAT percentile rankswhich were reported from 1959-66.
"N =65,830; Mean=32.47; Standard Deviation= 13,19
94
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)
Freshmen Entering Various Types of Minnesota CollegesFall, 1968
MSAT
Per-centile
9998979695
Jr.Colleges
60-7558-5950-5754-55
33
St.Colleges
61-710-60
585756
Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coll.
Four Yr.Liberal Arts
68-756766. .
65
Per-centile
67-75666561
09989796959493929190
9493929190
523130
. .
49
55343352
6362. .
91. .
64
63
8988878685
48
174746
51
50
..1.1
60
5858
6261
W)
89888786
84S3828180
45
'11
43
48
1'757
50
59
58
8-183828180
7978777675
12
1 i. .
46
15
55
51
57
50
7978777fi75
7473727170
0
39
44
43
53
52
55
54
7473727170
6968676665
38
37
42
;11
51
5053
52
6968676665
6403626160
36
35
40
39
in
1851
6463626160
5958575655
34 50
49
5958575655
5453525151)
33
32
37 46
;15
48
5453525150
95
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)
Entering Freshmen to Minnesota CollegesFall, 1968
MSAT
Per-centile
19181716-IS .._413-12110:i9:i817it;is
Jr.Colleges
31
30
20
St.Colleges
35
Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coil.
44
Four Yr.Liberal Arts-7
46
Per-centile
49.184746151.11312
.1 I
10.
39:i8:i7:36is
3413
42
:15
.1.1
2,.5
33
32:11
1:i
11
i:i32ilill-9282721;25
. .
27
2. 0
25
31:10
3!)
.12
:11
343332313021)
28272625
'..0.1
29
38.
40
39
2423222120
24
23:28
37
:.1(.5
38
37
2423222120
1918171615
22
21
2735
31
:i6
35
34
1918171615
1413121110
20
16
. .
25
24. .
33. .
32. .
33
3231
1413121110
98765
IS
1716
23
222120
3130292827
302928
. 27
98765
4321
1514131-12
19IS
16-175-15
2624-2520-231-19
2624-2521-23
1-20
4321
96
A
iV
70
65
60
55
50
45S
C40
35
30
25
20
15
10
MINNESOTA SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (MSAT)
Row Stores Corresponding to ti,r median. the twiddle two thirds 'bold bat',and the middle 90% (light bar) for all Minnesota junior norms.
the official entering college fteshmen norms, and norms Tor freshmencolleting vatic.us type, of Minnotolo Colleges in fall. 1963.
AllJuniors
Official JuniorNorms College College
State
97
U of M Four Yr
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
Entering Freshmen to Minnesota Colleges
Fall, 1968
HSR
Per-centile
Jr.Colleges
St.Colleges
Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coll.
Four Yr.Liberal Arts
Per-centile
9098979605
96-9904-95
9391-92
00
98-999790951)1
99 90 9998979095
9493929190
898887
85-8684
Oi9291
98
9798
0493929190
8988878685
8382818079
908988
87
06
6 O'
96
O5
898887868584-83828180
8483828180
7877767574
86
684
94
93
7978777675
727170
83
8281..
92
91
1)4
oi
7978777075
7473727170
6968
6766
807978
77
90
6 92
7473727170
6968676665
6564
6362
76
7574..
88
87
91
90
6968676665
646:3626160
61605958..
7372
7170
86
684
89
88
6463626100
51)58575655
5756555453
no68
oi
..8:3
82
87
86
6
5958575655
5453525150
Oi515049
66
66463
ii
6 84
83
5453525150
98
Minnesota State-Wide Norms for
Entering Freshmen to Minnesota Co newts
Fail, 1968(Continued)
HSR
Per-centile
Jr.Colleges
St.Colleges
Univ. of Minn.Four Yr. Coll.
Four Yr.Liberal Arts
Per-centtlt.
.19 48 79 19
48 62 82 IS47 47 lil 75 17
46it,
1660
SI 16
'I:'II 45 59 76 i;ii 4113 11 ,''.2 13 AS 75 79 12
1 57 750 2 56!I 11
s 40 55 7317 51 72 76 :;1; 39 75 :o,
15 35 53 .35
1$ 37 52 70 74 :11
13 36 51 7: :13
2 At) 69-, - 32
31 35 310 34 49 71 !'il
29 33 48 67.....
71) 228 32 17 66 69 2527 6 . 65 2726 31 45 115 Iii... 2625 30 11 66 252423 28 42 62 64-65 2322 27 . . 63 2221 26 -11 61 62 2!20 25 .10
. . . 2019 24 i9 59 61 1918 23 18 58 59-60 IS17 i7 57 58 1716 22 i6 56 57 II;15 21 15 56 IA
14 20 33-34 Si-!)!) 1.1
13 19 32 52 52.53 1312 17-18 31 51 51 12
16 30 49-50 19-50 11
:11 IS '28-29 . . 47-4S II)9 14 26-27 6-47 6 98 13 25 44-45 44-15 87 12 23-24 42-43 0-43 76 10-11 21-22 39-41 37-39 65 8-9 18-20 36-35 33-30 5
4 7 15-17 32-35 211t2. -I
3 5-6 12-14 26-31 21 -28 32 3-4 8-11 18-25 16-23 21 1-2 1-7 1-17 1- 1 5 I
99
95
90
85
8(1
7.5
C. 70
065
00
55
50
A45
10
35
3U
20
15
10
5
0
HIGH ICHOOL PERCENTILE RANKS (HSRI
Mrs corresponding to the pcentiles for the median, pre middle rwoilrirrils r bold bur.,and the middle 90°e flight bra) for freshmen entering various type, of
Minnesota College, in Toll, 1961.1With all Minnelolo Juniors included far comparison)
AllJuniors
JuniorCollt.ges
State U of NI row. Yr. Lib.Collcgs Fur Ir. Coll, Arts
100
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY (GATB)
andMINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORY (MVII)
Norms for the Curriculum or Occupational (Training) Areas inMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
The GATB and MVII norms on the following pages were furnishedby Dr. David Pucci and Dr. Howard F. Nelson of the Department ofIndustrial Education, University of Minnesota. The norms were gen-erated as a part of their Project MINI-SCORE° (Minnesota StudentCharacteristics and Occupationally Related Education).
All of the 17,500 applicants to the fall -time, day trade programsconducted in the Area Vocational-Technical Schools of Minnesotaduring the period from September, 1966 to October, 1968 took thepaper andpeneil portions of the GATB as part of an extensive bat-tery used in the Project MINI-SCORE research.
In Project MINI-SCORE the training courses offered in MinnesotaArea Vocational-Technical Schools were 'grouped into 63 relativelyhomogeneous groupings by personnel from the Minnesota State De-partment of Vocational Education and the Department of IndustrialEducation at the University of Minnesota. Presently, GATB, B-1002,Form B, training norms have been developed for 27 of these groupswhich attract a large proportion of students. Norms for additionaltraining groups are being prepared and will be included as they be-come available. The 27 current training groups have been put into twoclusters as folloWs:
Cluster I
Air Conditioning, Refrigerationand Appliance Repair
Aircraft MechanicsAgri-TechnologyArchitectural DraftingAutornotivesDiesel MechanicsElectronicsCarpentryFarm Equipment MechanicsFluid Power TechnologyMachine Shop
Cluster IIAccountingChefs and CooksClerical TrainingCosmetologyData ProcessingDental AssistantInterior Design and Sales AssistantMedical Laboratory AssistantPractical Nursing.SalesSecretarial Training
°Project MINI-SCORE (Minnesota Student Characteristics and OccupationallyRelated Education) is supported by a grant from the Division of Comprehensiveand Vocational Research, Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare under the formal title "The Characteristics of Full-timeStudents in Post Secondary Trade Schools." Project, No. IIRD 5-0148.
101
Cluster I Continued Cluster II Continued
Mechanical Drafting and DesignPlumbing and SheetmetalPower and Home ElectricityPrinting and Graphic ArtsWelding
The specific courses which are included in each of these 27 areaare listed on the following pages.
Notice that Cluster I contains occupations usually referred to astrade or technical occupations which attract predominantly males.Cluster II contains occupations related to business and social serviceand tend to enroll mostly females or both males and females.
The norm groups for the 27 Training Area are made up ofstudents who successfully completed courses in the particulartraining programs. While these are important and useful normgroups, it is important to remember that success in training doesnot necessarily mean success on the job. Project MINI-SCOREis assembling follow-up data to examine the relationship betweentest scores and job success and satisfaction. These data will beavailable soon and will be published as a supplement to thisbook. Until they are available, however, counselors and studentsshould keep in mind the distinction between training-successand job-related norms.
Project MINI-SCORE used only the written portions of GATBin its test battery.
The omission of the GATB manipulative performance tests fromthe Project MINI-SCORE Battery means that data relating scoresfrom these tests to training experience in Minnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools and to subsequent job experience are not availableor forthcoming.
Counselors may encounter students whose other scores or tentativevocational plans would make the manipulative scores useful, how-ever. Many Minnesota counselors who have completed EmploymentService GATB training programs and who are certified to administerGATB will want to administer the manipulative tests to such students.Schools who do not have a personnel with this training may be ableto send selected students to their local Employment Service Office tohave the tests administered,
102
AREA VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOL TRAINING AREAS
hc 27 training arcas for which GATB norms are available arclisted below.
I. AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCEREPA IR
2. AIRCRAFT MECHANICS
3. AGRI-TECIINOLOGYAgri- Chemicals and Fertilizers, Sales and ServiceAgricultural Technician ( Animal Science )Agriculhire Technician ( Plant Science)Agricultural Sales Technician
4. ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING
5. A UTOMOT1VESAuto MechanicAuto Body RepairAutomobile ManagementAutomobile Technician
0, DIESEL MECHANICSDiesel MechanicsDiesel :Mechanics TechniciansTruck and Diesel Mechanics
7. ELECTRONICSElectronicsElectronics, CommunicationsElectronics, Computer MaintenanceElectronics, Industrial and Home Entertainment ServiceElectronics, Industrial TechnicalElectronics, Radio and TelevisionElectronics, Technician CommunicationsElectronics, Technician IndustrialElectronics, TechnicianElectronics, TeChnology
8. CARPENTRYBuilding ConstructionCarpentry
9. FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICSFarm Equipment MechanicsFarm Mechanics
10. FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY
103
II, MACHINE SHOPMachine OperatorMachinistProduction Machinist
12. MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGNEngineering DraftingIndustrial DraftingIndustrial Drafting TechnologyMachine DraftingTechnical DraftingDesign TechnologyDrafting and Design Technology
13. PLUMBING AND SHEETNIETAL
14. POWER AND HOME ELECTRICITYElectricalElectrical, ConstructionElectrical, MaintenanceElectrical, TechnologyLineman ElectricianPower Plant Operation
15. PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTSGraphic ArtsPhotolithography and off-set printingOffset Printing
16. WELDING
17. ACCOUNTING
18. CHEFS AND COOKSChefCook, InstitutionalHotel and Restaurant Cooking
19. CLERICAL TRAININGClerical Record KeepingClerk, General OfficeClerk-TypistClerk-Typist Machine Operator
20. COSMETOLOGY
21. DATA PROCESSINGClerical Training and Data ProcessingClerical Training and Key PunchTabulating Machine Operator
104
22. DENTAL ASSISTANT
23. INTERIOR DESIGN AND SALES ASSISTANT
24. MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT
25. PRACTICAL NURSING
26. SALESSales ManagementSales and MarketingSales Training
27. SECRETARIAL TRAININGEducational SecretaryHospital Station SecretarySecretarial Training, GeneralSecretarial Training, MedicalStenographic TrainingMedical Office AssistantMedical Office ServiceLegal Secretary
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY (GATB)
Project MINI-SCORE Training Success Norms
forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools*
Description of the Profiles
The Aptitude Score Scaleis plotted along the left sideof each page. A bar for each iie
The light portion of the bar
of scores for the middle
represents the micIdle 90 per
cessfully completed courses
the 1)111. represents the range
two-thirds of these students.
cent of the group. That is, 90
in that area. The bold part of
84' ; ilc
of the seven aptitude scoresrepresents the range of scoresfor 8-tridents who Wee suc-
ileper cent of the students in theProject Nfini-Score researchwho successfully completedcourses in a particular area had GATB Aptitude scores which fellbetween the top and bottom ends of the light bars, and two-thirds ofthe students had Aptitude scores which fell between the top andbottom of the bold portion of the bars.
The seven GATB Aptitudes for which Minnesota Norms are avail-able are as follows:
Aptitude G General Learning Ability (Intelligence)The ability to "catch on" or understand instructions and underlyingprinciples and the ability to reason and make judgments.
Aptitude V Verbal AptitudeThe ability to understand the meaning of words ;,ad the ideas theystand for, and to use them effectively.
Aptitude N Numerical AptitudeAbility to perform arithmetic operations quickly and accurately.
Aptitude S Spatial AptitudeAbility to think visually of geometric forms and to comprehendthe two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional objects.
°Please refer to Page 101 for a discussion of the Project MINI-SCORE Projectand a description of the norm groups.
106
Aptitude P Form PerceptionAbility to perceive pertinent detail in objects In pictorial or graphicmaterial.
Aptitude Q Clerical PerceptionAbility to perceive pertinent detail in verbal or ta:Jular material.
Aptitude K Motor CoordinationAbility to coordinate eyes and hands or fingers rapidly and accu-rately in making precise movements with speed..
161
I 00
155
150
145
110
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
115
110
85
so
75
70
55
50
45
Air Conditioning, Refrigeration and Appliance Repair
V N S P QInt, Verbal Num. Spatial Form P. Cler'eal Motor
107
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCE REPAIR
Per-centile G V N S P Q K
Per-centile
999897911
i5
132127-131
. .
126122-12.5
129
120-128119
116-118115
134
133
132
124-131121-123
153151-152
.150140-149133-139
1441 4 1-143
140139138
148143-147
:42140-141
155150-154
149138-148133-137
9998979695
194
;i39291
90
121
120
119
112 -114
111
120119
118. .
117
137134-136
133131-132
..
137
136
135
139
13)129-137
128
.
132..
129-131128
94939291
90
8988878685
11811.0
109
. .
11611.5
130
125. -.1 29
. .
132-134131
130129
126-127125
123-124..
122
125-127124
122-123121
. .
8988.87
8685
8483828180
11 7 108
107
114
..
128
127
1.2.6
125
120 -121 120
84&3
8281
80
7978777675
116115
114
106
/05
1.0.4
113
112111
110
124..
124
123
119 119118
116 -117
115
7978
6670
75
74737271
70
. .
113112.1 1 1
. .
103
102
109
1'04
..
..121123
122
121
118116-117
115
114
113
74
73
7271
70
6968676605
110 101
107 120
1201 18-119
117112
69686777
65
64636261
CA
109
100
9998
106
105
118-119
116115114
III111
109 -110
108
64
6.3
6261
00
5958575655 107
97 104
103
102
117113
113 107
106
5958
57
5655
54535251
50 106
96
ii 101
115 -116
112 112
111
105
104103102
54535251
50
108
)
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCE REPAIR(Continued)
cent& G Y N S P Qer-Per -'
K cent&
4948 1054746 10445 101-103
94
114
111-.113
111
110
110109
1.08
4948474645
444342 1004140
93 100
99
109108
1.07
14144434241
4039383736 6435
92
9198
110107
106
105.. 166
3938373635
34333231 .
30 98
90
89 97
108-109107
105-106
106
105104
.
102-103
99
48
97
34333231
3029 ..28 9727 9926 9525
ii OC
95
104. .
102-103
101
104. .
..103
101100..
44
9695949392
292827,2625
2423 oi222120
ii
ii
oi 98-.100
9.7
95-96
102
100.-10199
..
98
91
0089
24232221
2019 9318171615
85
84
93
44
92-.93
.
96 -98
95
47
88
19
18
17
10
15
14 9213 ..12 9111 9010 . .
83
ii
92
91
44
41
89 -90
ai
90
87 14
13
1211
10.
9 8987 ii6 875 86
8. -1
80
86-89858483
88
79 -87
93
-..9291
95
oi
.
92-93
86..
81-858079
987
6
5
4 71-853 702 68-691 67
75-7974
71-7370
78-8277
58-7657
78
68--7765
87-9086
85
9190
88-8987
63-7862
59-6158
4
3
21
M..58M..104.158D -12.88
N.4695.93
SD-11.72
N -56M-102.1480 -12.90
N-56M-111.77SD- 17.51
N.-56M..112.23SD -14.40
N-50M..110.7080 ..13.82
N.,513M- 104.8080 -18.27
109
1611
155
150
141
1 UI
135
130
315
1;10
115
110
105
100
01
!HI
N:i
so
75
0
05
(A)
55
so
.15
Aircraft Mechanics
Verba1 Nitta. Sp3 1'. (:Ivrica1
110
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational Technical Schools
AIRCRAFT MECHANICS_Per-
centile G V 1
_ .
S P Q KPer-
cernile99 135-138 123-133 129-134 153-156 150-156 135-1 5 2 150.163 9998 131-134 121-122 12S 151-152 147-149 149-108 98117 130 110-120 120-127 159 140 134 141 -148 9790 129 115 124-125 148-149 i 4,1i-145 . . 140 96115 127-128 . . 123 147 129-1 3 3 13 7-139
.._.....95..
122 144-146 14394 12 6 117 128 130 9493 .. .. 127 9392 12.5 121 143 142 . . 135 9291 1111 140-141 126 134 9190 .. 115 1211 141-142 139 . . 9089 124 119 140 130.133 8988 112-114 138-139 138 120-129 8887 I 1 1 137 12.1 -125 8786 123 . . 1.1S 1.37 125 122-123 8685 II 0 _ 136 .. 121 858 4 124 120 8483 122 109 134-136 135 123 119 8382 117 133 134 8281 121 131 -132 118 8180 . . .. 122 .. 8079 133 121 117 7978 1.20 1.16 110 7877 132 120 .. 7776
115 7675 108 130 131 114 7574 115 7473 119 1.3.0 7372 119 113 7271 1.07 129
. 7170 114. .. 112 7069 196 1 1 2-113 128-129 128 6968 118
GS67 105 11.1 127 118 111 676665 1.20 110 6656
64 - 117 104 110 116-1 1 7 109 64(53 127 (1362 116108 6261 125 61
6(1 10360
59 115 309 .. 115 107 5958 124 5857 123 5756 114 125 -126 122 1.06 505555
54 113 102 108 121 105 5453 120 5352 119 104 5251 107 114 . 5150 112 118 10.3 50
111
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational Technical Schools
AIRCRAFT MECHANICS(Continued)
Per-centile G V N S P Q
Per-H centile
49484740 11:1
45
101 . 106
105
194
124117 113
102
1(11
4948474645
4443424 1 11040
100 103121-123
116112
1 1 1
110
1009998
96-97
444342414(1
39383736 10935
99
102
101 120
115
114109
.
95.
94
3938373635
34 10833 107323130 106
98
97
96
100
118-119
117
113..
112111110
108
..
oi.
92
3433323130
292827 105
2625
9599
115-116109
10S
107
106105
91
it89
3928272625
24 1042322 1032120 102
94 6e7
114
..111-113
110
107
106
104..
102-103101
87-88..
.
86..
2423222120
19I8 1011716 99 -10015 98
9391-92
96
95
103:109107..
105-106
05
104103
101-102
100
8584
81-83
80
1918171615
1413 .
12 971110 ..
90
89
94
93
02
102-104
101
100
99
99
98
79.
77-78
7675
1413121110
9 9687 94-956 935 92
..8887
6
91
90
89
98 -100
9795 -96
98979695
97
95-96
7473
72
98765
4 913 88-902 871 86
85848382
85.8878-84
7775.76
9492-9378-91
93-949291
76-90
92-949190
81-89
7170
67-6960-66
-4321
N 103M- 111.52SD=10.88
N=I03M=101.41SD= 9.01
N -103M =105.92SD-11.48
14 -, 103M- 122.26BD= 14.80
N=103M =119.20SD-15.40
N =103M =111.55SD = 11.49
N=103M- 102.71SD =20.46
112
A
P
1
1)
S
0Ii
S
1.15
160
155
1511
1.11
110
135
130
125
120
1 II
110
105
100
01
lw
85
so
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
Agri-Technology
Verbal N11131. Spatial
113
FOII P. Clerical Mc for
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
AGRI-TECHNOLOGY
Per-centile G Y N S P 0 K
Per-crnlile
9995979695
135-137134
132-133
130-131
123-129121-122119-120
118116-117
111-143140
136-139135134
144-153143
138 -142
137
147-163115-146139-141
138
137
136-146135
133-134132
130-131
132-142124-131122-123
121
99OS
970695
9493929190
..129
128125-127
115112-114
I 1 I
109-110
133127-132124 -126
..123
I33.136131-132
.
130
136135134133
129126-128
125
120119I ISI17
115-116
049302111
39
8988878685
124
123119-122
118
1118
122
121
128 -129
127
132
131
130
124
123122
IN
113
312
89888786
85
54838281
80
8483828180
117
107
106
119:120118
1 I 7
125.126
.
129128
.
127
121120
.311
110
7978777675
116
105
104
116
115 126
119160
79
78
77
71;
75
7473.727170
115
li 4
113
103114
113
124 125.
124
123
118
11-117
108107
1911
74
7:3
7271
70
6968676665
112
111
102
191 11.2 121-123
122
121
119-120114
105
. 104
6368
07
611
05
6463626160
110
100
99
111
110
121)
118
117115-116
103
102
64636261
60
5958575655
109
98
109
108
110-119
117
11.4
113
113101
100
5955.
575655
5453525150
108
10797
107
11i-116
114 .
111-113
112112
111
99
Oa
97
54535251
50
114
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
AGRI-TECHNOLOGY(Continued)
Per-centile G V
Per-K cenlile
4948 109474645 105
10.0
1.10
111
1.1.0
110999.5.
64
4948474645
44434241
40 104
105104
108 -109
109108
107
109 93.
92
44434241
40
39383736 10335
103107
105 -106
106
105
fo's
107
61
3938373635
34 1023332 101
3130
94
102101
104
102 -103
104..103102
10E1
. 1059089
88.
3423
31
30
292827 1002625
6 100
9.9.
101
61
100
104
102:103
8.7
2928272625
242322 ..21 9920
92
91
68
9.7.
98-10099
98
101 8685
84
24232221
201918 ..17 981615
90
86 96
95
6796-97
95
94
14083
1918171615
14 971312 9.6.
II 94-9510 93
88
86-8785
83-84
94
..
95-9694
91-9389-90
88
9392
61
90
66
98ii
86
14
13
12
II
10
9 928 917 9065 86
828180..
93..
9291
88-90
85-8784
82-8381
898887
85-86
67
94 -9693
7977-78
76..75
98 r7
65
43 ii
2 871 71-86
797877
66-76
86-8784-8582-8380-81
78-8075-7771-74
8482-83
81
77-80
9291
9075-89
74
67-7363-6653-92
4321
N =115M=107.71SD = 11.90
N=11511=97.54
BD= 10.31
N=115M=107.74SD = 12.60
N=11551=11177SD= 1140
N =115M=111.95SD 16.53
N=115M-= 110.05SD= 11.24
N =115M= 97.07SD=14.93
115
16.5
160
155
150
115
I 10
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
10))
"5
65
ti)
7.5
70
(i3
60
55
50
'5
Architectural Drafting
L t. VerbalN
Nam.S
Spatial
116
P QForm P. Clerical Motor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING
Per-cenlile G V N S P Q K
Per-cenlile
9993979695
136135134
132-133131
135122-134
121
118-120117
132..
126-131125
153148-152
178171-177
370162-169
161
178
145-177141
136.143
142137-141
136133-135
132
999$97
96
95
9493
112
91
_ 90
130129
127-128124-126
..
116..
115
124123122121120
147
144 -146
153-160157
148-159
147
135
64
123-131124
122-123121120
919392
91
99
8988878085
123
122
112-114
13.1
109 -110
119
118
143
141 -142
149145144143142
130-133
'9129
119HS
116-117115114
89
8887
8689
8483
8281
80121
108107
106
1171.40
141
140139
138
125-328
124
113
112
84
8382
8180
79787776
75
120
119
105
116
115
113 -114
138 -339
137137
123
..
Ill
7978
7776
7473
7271
70
118
116 -117
115104
112
111
134-136
133
13)1
135134
122
121
120
110
74
73
72
71
70
6968676665
1113
131:132 133
132
119
109
106-108
09686766
65
6463626160
114
113
103
102109
130131
130
118
116-317 105
64
636261
60
5958575655
112101
108
128 -129- ..
129
128
115 ..103-104
102
5958575655
5453525150
111 100 107
106
127.. 127
126
114101
54
535251
50
117
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesla Area Vocational-Technical Schools
ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING(Continued)
Percentke G V N
I))5
S
125-126
1.24
P QPer-
K centile
19
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
6)
109
99
98
97
96
05
125
..
124
113
..
III)
99
98
07
49
48
47
46
45
164
122-123
..
112
111
110
66
44
43
42
41.
4039
35
:37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
108
11)3 121
10990
39
38
3736
35
11)7 94
..
102
121-123
126
120
119
105 ..
92-94
34
3.3
32
31
30
29
23
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
II
10
1(1(1
104-105
11E3
..
102
..
..
.
101
. 166
93
101
100 I18 -119
118
117
107
105-106
1(14
102-.103
1.04
91
29
28
27
26
25
92
91
.
90
SO
88
87
..
09
..
97-98
96
117
115-116
115-116
114
109-113
108
..
66
..
23
22
21
20
10
IS
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
95
94
93114
..
107
106
105
100
66
89
58
02
87-91
86
. .
85
111-113
110
11)4
98
87
86
9
8
7
6
5
.
97-90
66..
86
..
84
..
108-109
107
105-106
I04
103
102
101
99-100
98
. 97
96
..
95
94
83-85
..
82
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
95
94
90-93
89
83-85
82
79-81
78
8382
75-81
74
102-103
101
05-100
94
96-97
95
85-94
84
63
83-92
82
81
80
71-79
70
4
3
2
1
N =53M=111.34SD= 10.21
N=53NI= 99.47SD= 10..18
N =53M=105.43SD=12.48
11 =53M=126.53SD= 12.03
N=53M =12021SD=18.22
N =53M=114.32SD= 15.40
11 =5311=101.40SD = 14.51
118
/
155
150
1.15
110
115
125
120
115
Ili]
105
!NI
Si
75
(15
(U)
55
50
15
Automotives
S ()Nun!. SpatEil Fir ical ',tutor
119
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
AUTOMOTIVES
Per-centile G V N S P 0 K
Per-centile
99OS
979695
131-139132-133
131129 -131)127-128
122-129119-121
118I 1 i
115-116
135-142131-134120-130
1281211-127
151-160118-150
147141-146
156-172151-155146-150143-145
142
139-157136-138
135134133
141-159137-110131-136127-130125-126
999S979695
94939291
90
126125124
. .
123
112-114. .
1 1 1
110
124-125123122121120
143141 -142
140138-139
141140
138-139137136
131-132129-130
128126-127
123-124121-122
120
9493929190
8988878685
122121120119
11)9
.
108
119118
. .
117116
137
134.-.136
135134
133
125
124
123
118-119
117116115
8988878685
8483828180
118
117
16711.5
114
133
134-.132
132
131
..130
122
121
114
113
112
8483828180
7978777675
116
1.1.5
114
106
1.05
113
112
130
128 -129
129128
42.7
120
440
111
110
7978777675
74737271
70
113
104
103In
127
1.26
125 118
116 -117
109
108
107
7473727170
6968676665
112
111
102
101
110
109125 -126
124
123115
114
106
105104
6968676665
6463626160
110
109
100 108
107124
122
121120 113
103
102
6463626160
5958575655
108
99106
105 121 -123
119
1.16
117 112101
5958575655
5453525150
107
98
ii104
120116
115
111
110100
5453525150
120
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Techni-^1 Schools
AUTOMOTIVES(Continued)
Per-centile G V N S P Q K
Per-centile
494847-16
45
106
i..,
95
103
102118-119
..114113
.
109
66
98
4948474645
4443424140
105
104101
1.00
117
115-.116
112
111
1.10
108
67
4443
4241
40
3938373635
103
1.02
9366
1.1.4
109
..108
107106
105
96.
95.
64
3938373635
34333231
30
101
160
92
61
98
97
111-113
110
107
100
105
1.04
.
93
92
61
34333231
30
2928272025
.
99
68
90
89.
96
95
108 -109
107
104
103
102-103101
90
89
2928272625
24232221
20
97
6688
9493
105-106
1.64
102-103
102101
100
..
100
99
8887
86
2423222120
19
18171615
95
9493..
87
89
8.5
92
9.1.
90
..
101
98 -100
9998
9790
98
9.7.
8584
83
19
18
17
10
15
1413
1211
10
92
6190
8.4
8382
8988
8785-86
67
95-9694
92-93
959493
N-9290
9.6
95
94
82..8180
1413
1211
10
98765
89..
874886
84-85
81
80
79
83-8482
80-8179
91
86-60
8884-87
..
8887
85-86
92-9391
89-90
79787776
74-75
98765
4321
82-8379-8177-7858-76
7870-77
7508 -74
77-7875-7673-7453-72
82-8379-8175-7861-74
8481-8370-8053-75
8887
84-8679-83
70-7368-6964-6729-63
4321
N=495M=106.05SD= 12.84
N=495M= 96.60SD =10.99
N=405M=103.140=13.69
N=495M=117.29SD =17.34
121.
N=495M=114.61SD = 17.92
N=495M=110.15SD= 12.32
N = 495= 99.24
SD-16.09
It
1(0
155
150
115
10
1:35
1,30
125
120
115
110
105
100
55
Sti
31 I
75
(35
15
Diesel Mechanics
351.1,t1 \ 010.
122
IL"(1
I'm ( :l ie,i1
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
DIESEL MECHANICS
Per-centile G V N S P 0 K
Per-centile
99 1:31-132 120-121 151-15:3 152 136-1:39 129-130 9998 130 132 ISO .. 135 128 9897 129 119 .. 148-149 151 127 9796 128 118 129-131 144 -1 -17 144-150 134 121-126 9695 127 .. 128 143 143 .. 95
94 117 127 138-142 142 132-13:3 949.3 126 116 126 141 127-131 120 9392 .. .. .. 126 .. 9291 125 115 125 137 140 122-125 118-110 9190 110-114 139 121 114-117 90
89 124 124 13S 120 .. 89SS 123 12:3 137 113 8887 .. 13.i-.1:36 119 .. 8786 121-122 109 120-122 136 110-11.: 8685 R5
84 110 1:33 135 . 8483 120 .. .. 134 6.8 100 8382 .. 118 .. 133 .. 82RI 107-108 116-117 131-132 .. 108 81
...80 1.1.9 114-115 .. 131-132 116.-.117 .. 80
79 306 .. 107 7978 118 130 136 .. 7877 105 113 106 7776 105 7675 11.7 .. 129 102-104 75
74 112 128-129 115 .. 747:3 . 104 .. . 7372 116 111 128 101 7271 114-115 127 7370 113 103 127 126 98 -100 70
69 . . 110 69OS 11.4 6867 112 125 6.i 6766 6665 102 109 125 -126 1.13 94-96 65
64 6463 93 6362 Ill 108 124 6261 10) 112 92 6161) 60
59 107 1 1 1 5958 124 5857 10.0 122-123 01 5756 110 106 121 110 5655 55
154 99 120 90 54
3 53 .. 53i 52 109 119 52
51 123 -123 118 109 51E 50 117 50
I
1
f,
t:
123
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
DIESEL MECHANICS(Continued)
Per-
centile G V N S P Q KPer-
cenlile
4948474645
108
105-107
98
105
120
113-116
112
108
89
88
49
48474645
44434241
40
39
38
7
10
35
104
. .
9796..
104
. .
117-119115-116
111
..110109108 107
97
8.6.
4443
4241
40
103
95
6:1
1.0..3 114
1111:113
107
106105
85
84
3938373035
343;3
3231
301.02
. . 63
102100-101
99
104
103
106
10583
34333231
30
2925272625
24
232221
20
. .
100-101..99
92
9897
9. a
110102
104 8:2
2928272625
98
97 91
65
..
108-109105-107
101
97 -100
..102-103
101
24232221
20
19
18
1716
15
9695
94
9094
104
102 -103
96100
99
81
80
19
1817
16
14
13
12
11
10
63
888780
85
93
62
91
101
68100
94
93
97-98
95 -96
797877
14
13
12
11
10
9
87
65
. .
9290-9188-89
87
84
682..
90
78 -89
7776
97
95-9694
9291
89-90
6
94
939291
70..
74-757372
987
65
4321
84-8682-83
.
81
79-8178
.
74-77
75
7.4
71-73
81-9379-80
78
87
86
908988
81-87
70-7167-69
6660-65
43
21
_N=69
M=107.57SD=12.03
N=69M = 98.42SD= 10.24
N=69M=105.04SD-13.58
N =69M=118.42SD= 15.88
124
N=69M=115.64SD-17.73
N-69M =109.38SD=11.13
N=69M= 92.112SD= 15.30
165
1641
15:5
150
111
110
115
I' 110
1125
120
I) 115
110
105
0 100
It95
S
53
Electronics
1; 1' 0Spatial For 11 P. Clerical Nlotlir
125
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
ELECTRONIC.
Per-centile G V N 5 P 0 K
Per-centile
99
98
97
96
95
140-143
136.139
1,7,5
134
128-131
120 -127
124-125
123
122
137-153
136
135
134
133
153-156
151-152
148-150
147
14.4:146
..
143
11)0 -105
157-159
154-156
149-153
146-118
140-155
137-139
130
135
134
141-149
140
137-139
132-130
130-131
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
133
..
132
..
131
..
121
120
132
131
130
..
129
145
143-144
142
141
140
..
133
132
..
131
128-129
125-127
12 -1
123
122
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
..
130
129
119
118
117
128
127
126
141-142
110
139
138
137
136
130
129
..
127-128
126
121
120
119
118
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
128
127
110
115
125
124
123
138 -139
137
135
134
125
124
123
117
116
84
8382
81
8(1
79
78
77
76
75
126
126
123-124
112-114
111
..
122
..
121
120
..
131-136
133131-132
..
133
131-132
130 122
115
114
. .
113
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
122
121
110
119
118
130
129
12.8
121
120
112
1.11
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
126
119
109 117
116
128-129
127
127
126
125
119
118
110
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
118
117
108
115
114
125 -126
124
123
122
116-117
115
109
103
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
116 107
106
113
112
11
120
107
106
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
115 105 111
110
124
119
118
114 105
104
103
54
53
52
51
50
126
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
ELECTRONICS(Continued)
,..
Per-
centile
49
G V N S P
117
Q
Per-
1( cent lie
49
4i 114 104 113 45
47 102 4746 109 121-123 116 4t(
45 45
44 113 103 115 101 44
43 112 41
42 108 120 114 42
41 41
HI 112 III 100 40
39 102 113 393S 107 112 99 38
37 111 118-119 .. 37
36 III 1111 OS 36
31 110 106 35
31 . 101 97 34
33 109 110 96 3332 109 94-95 92
11 im 31
30.
100 105 117 109 30
29 . 105 93 2925 107 107 108 . 28
27 92 2726 99 104 1011 26
25 106 105 91 25
24 .. 115-116 89-90 24
23 98 10.4 107 88 21
22 105 103 106 2221 114 19.3 R787 21
. 6'7 . 20
19 104 101-102 105 86 19
I8 .. 96 100 111-113 102 85 18
17 103 99 S4 17
16 95 110 1110-101 83 16
15 OS 99 82 15
14 . 94 108-199 98 104 .. 14
13 102 97 89-81 13
12 .. 93 6'7 102-103 79 12
11 92 96 107 95-96 101 73 11
10 101 91 .. 94 Ion 76-77 10
9 95 .. 93 75 98 100 60 94 104-106 92 66 8
7 99 102-103 91 74 7
6 89 6 101 90 97-98 .. 11
5 97-9S 83 92 97-100 89 95-96 69-73 5
4 96 87 91 95-96 88 94 68 4
3 95 86 90 94 86-87 91-93 62-67 3
2 94 85 89 88-93 84-85 88-90 51-61 2
1 91-93 82-84 78-88 78-87 71-83 81-87 37-50 1
N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202 N=202M = 114.93 M=105.10 M=111.00 M=121.22 M=117.92 M = 114.24 M=101.450=11.213 SD=10.20 SD= 12.46 SD= 14.43 SD= 17.71 SD= 11.71 18.77
127
Carpentry
128
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
CARPENTRY
Per-
centile G V 0 KPer-
cenlile
9908979695
132-136128-131
127125-126
..
119-121113117116115
133-134131-132128-130
127125-126
150-153147-149144-146
143
145-166142-144140-141
139
132-146129-131
128127126
128-134124-127121-123
..120
9998579695
94939291
90
123-124
122
110-114109
108107
124123122121
. .
141-142
140
138:139
138137
135-136133-134
125124
123
. .
119
118
117116
949:21
91
90
8988878685
121
.
120119
106
120
119137
134 -136
132131
130
122121
120
115
114
113
8988878685
84838281
80
118
117
1.65
164
1 1 S
117132
131 :162
129128
127 119
112111
110
109
84838281
80
7978777675
116
115
103
102
116
115 130
126
125118
116 -117
108
107
7978777675
74
737271
70 11.4
101
114
113
128-129124123
132
115106..
105104
74737271
70
6968676665
113
100
99
112
111
127
131
120114
163.
102
6968676665
6463626160
112
111 98
110125-126 119
118113
112111 -101
6463626160
5958575655
110
109
97
109
108
124117
116
110
..
5958575655
54535251
50 108
96107
121-123 115109
99-10098..
5453525150
129
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
CARPENTRY(Continued)
Per-centile G Y iV S P Q
Per-X cenlile
494847 107
4045
14 1004342 10541
40
39 10438373635
i-i 103333231 10230 101
95
94
93. .
92. .
91
90
106
105
104
103
102
I'm
109
99
120
118-110
117
115-.110
114
111-113
114
113
112
...
111
110..
109
108
100-.107
1115
.
101
102-103
101
100
97
.
91;
95
94
..
93
49
4847411
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38373635
198
107
106105
92
91
89-90
34333231
30
292827 1.09
2625
89
88
98
97110
90
SS
87
2928272625
2423 992221
20 98.
87
95
96
..
108-.109
107
104
103
..6
86
85
24232221
20
19 9718 961716
15 95
858483
95. .
949392
105 -lor,
104
102
10-1
199
9.
84
83
82
19
18
17
16
15
1413 911211
10 93
82
91
91
90
898
102-103101
..98-100
97
09
98. .
97
96
9594
79 -81
7876-77
14
13
12
11 .-
10
98 627 916 89-905 87-88
80
78-7977
86-988584
82-8381
..95-96
9492-93
91
9695
93-9492
69291
757473
71-7269-70
987
65
4 85-863 81-842 74-801 65-73
75-7673-74
7270-71
76-8074-7563-7359-67
89-9088
79-8774-78
88-9184 -8780-8395-79
8-9085-8771-84
6867
63-6620-62
4
3
2
1
N..181M=107.02SD..11.95
N..181M... 94.95SD=10.59
N=181M=105.12SD..13.56
N=181M-119.29SD=15.51
N..181M=114.52SD=14.70
N=1815.1=108.13SD=11.37
N...181M= 96.56SD=15.70
130
105
100
153
151)
1.15
1.10
135
130
123
120
113
110
1(13
(03
75
70
(is
(00)
55
15
Farm Equipment Mechanics
C N S
Verbal Num. Spatial For o 1'.
131
Clerical
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICS
Per-
centile G V KPer-
centile
99
98
97
96
95
135-136
134
133
128-132
127
116-119
115
111-114
110
135-147
134
131-133
130
151-153
150
147-149
144-146
157-160
156
150-155
149
139-166
138
133-137
132
123-132
122
121
120
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
124-126
. .
123
122
109
..
107-108
106
105
127-129
126
..
125
143
141-142
140
..
138-139
144-148
143
142
137-141
131
129-130
127-128
126
125 '
119
118
116-117
115
114
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
121
120
119
..
124
123
..
122
137
134-136
133
135-136
134
133
124
123
113
..
112
111
110
89.
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
118
117
104
121
120
119
131 -132
..
132
130-131
129
120-122
119
109
108
107
106
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
116
115
103
118
116-117
..
115
114
130
128-129
128
127
126
118
115-117
105
164
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
114
102
118
127,
125
124
114
103
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
113
112
101
112
111
110 125 -126
123
118
102 69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
111 124
122
120-121 112
101 64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
110
100
109 121 -123 119
118
111
110
100
99
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
109
108
99
98
108
107
120
118 -119
117
116 109
98
.
97
54
53
52
51
50
132
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technkal Schools
FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICS(Continued)
Per-centile G V N S P 0
Per-K centile
49 107
48
47
46 166
45
97
106
117
115-116
115
114
108
96
9,5
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40 105
96
95
105
104
114
111 -113
110
113 107
169
94 44
43
42
41
40
39
3837
36 16.4
.35
Oi 103 108 -109 112
105
93 3938
37
36
35
34
33 103
32
31 102
30
93 102
101
167
111
108-110
107
104
102 -103
..
92
91
88-90
34
33
32
31
30
29 101
28
27 100
26
25
92
91
100
6 105 -106
1031106
102
101
87
29
28
27
26
25
24
23 99
2221
20
90
98
104
102-103
101
99 -100
68
100
if,
85
24
23
22
21
20
19 98
18 ..
17 96-97
16 95
15 94
88
87
97
96
101
95-100
94
97
96
95
66
84
83
19
18
17
16
15
14
13 612 9211 91
10
88
95
6-94
62
92-93
91
6.4
oi
98
67
6
81
14
13
12
11
10
98 90
7
6
5 89
83 -85
82
90-91
84 -89
83
81-90
85-88
92
96
94-95
6
679
78
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 88
2 871 81-86
81
80
76-79
82
..
72-81
8479-83
78
71-77
91
87-90
86
82-85
91-92
90
88-89
77
73-76
72
55-71
4
3
2
1
N=72M=107.49SD=11.53
N=72M= 96.88SD= 8.55
N=72M =107.31SD=13.22
N=72M =115.81SD= 17.79
N=72M=115.86SD= 17.08
N=72M=109.94SD=12.08
N=72M= 96.40SD = 13.21
133
161
155
1 17)
11)
111.
)15
St
In i
Fluid Power Technology
l'01))1 Simi. tip; (fit!
134
(:1,.K
\I tl.r
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY
l'er-
centile G
113
112
111
134-110
133
130-132
129
127-12s
126
125
121
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
V
123
118-122
117
110
115
112-114
111
110
169
168
107
106
105
104
103
102118-119
N
110
142-145
141
110
139
138
137
136
133-135
132
S
143
111-142
110
138-139
137
134-136
P
100
1411-159
115
143-141
142
137-111
136
135
134
133
132
131
13)1
129
128
0
152
151
137-1511
130
135
131
133
130-132
129
12s
127
126
125
121
123
122
121
120
119
118
K
140
163-115
132
131
130
129
I2S
127
120
121-125
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
.113
112
III
110
.
109
108
107
106
Per-
centile
99
98
97
90
95
91
93
92
91
11)
89
$S
8786
85
84
83
82
81
50
79
7;
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
6867
611
65
64
63
62
01
00
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
99
98
97
90
95
94
93
92
91
90
S9
Ss
ST
811
85
84
83
82
Si
80
79
78
77
70
75
74
73
72
71
70
129-131
128
.
127
126
125
(24
123
133
131-132
130
128-129
127
125-120
127
1211
125
124
123.
..
122
..
122
..
12. 1
121
120
119
118
09
6s
67
06
65
64
03
02
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
50
126
1'16
..
118
117
1111
124
121-123
120
118-119
117
110
1'15
114
116-117
115..
..
6'4
113
112
Ill135
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY(Continued)
Per-
centile G V N S P Q KPer-
cenlile
4948474645
115113-114
101
115
..11.1
113112
1.17
. .
115.-.116
1.1.0 113105
4948474045
44434241
40
44434241
.10
112
11.1
100
99109 1.1.2
104
103
3938
373635
110 OS
95 -97II]
114
111 -113 108
107
111
110
102
101
3938
373635
34333231
30
109
108110 110
106 109
10810099
3433323130
2928272625
107
1.66
94
..
109
108-109
105
104103
107
98
97
2928272625
24232221
20
105
104
939291
108
107
106107
102
106
105
101 -104
96
95
64
24232221
20
19181716
15
103
102
90105104
103..
105-106104
101
98-100
97100
93
9291
19
1817
1615
14
13
1211
10
99-101
68
891.62
, .
101
102-103
101
96
95
99
9.8
90
89
87-88
14
13
1211
10
98
7
65
97
oo
8685
89
97-.10096
94-9593
..98-100
97
949392
97
9692-95
86
83-8582
98765
432
1
91-9590
86-8985
81-8380
92.
83-9182
95-9694
85-9384
87-9186
85
91
91)
79-8178
75-7774
4
321
N=51M=114.51SD =12.41
N=51M=100.49SD= 9.63
N =51M=116.33SD= 13.24
N=51M=119.04SD =14.27
136
N=51M=113.86SD= 15.53
N=51M=115.31SD=11.51
N=51M=107.20SD = 15.73
AT
S11
S
16.5160
155150
145/40
135130
I 25120
115110
105101)
9590
8580
7570
6560
5550
45
Machine
Shop
IS
ILL
Spatial
137
P Q ti
Form
Clerical
Motor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
MACHINE SHOP
Per
centile 6 V N S P Q KPer-
centile
99
98
97
90
95
131-141
130
129
127-128
126
123-125
119-122
118
117
115-110
136-145
132-135
130-131
129
128
148-153
..
147
144-146
143
153-165
148-152
145-147
143-144
1.12
139-143
137-138
135-136
132-134
129-131
135-138
129-134
128
124-127
121-123
99
98
97
90
95
91
93
92
91
90
125
..
124
123
122
112-114
110-111
109
126-127
125
138-142
137
141
140
139
138
128
12(1 -127
125
124
120
..
119
118
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
121
1.2.0
16's
1.0.7
124
123
..
122
..
134.-436
..
136-137
135
134
133
132
123
..
122
121
..
117
116
..
115
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
119
148 1.06
121
120
119
133
131.-132
131
130
129
128
120
119
114
113
112
84
83
82
81
SO
79
78
77
76
75
117
..
116
115
165
118
14.7
130
127
12(1
1.18
111
..
110
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
114 16.4
163
116
128:129
127
125
124
116-117
115
109
.
108
107
106
74
73
72
71
70
09
68
67
66
65
113
112
162
115
11.4
125-126
123
114 105
104
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
111
101
100
113
124
122
121
119-120
118
113
103
102
101
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
1,9
55
110
66
6
111
110
109
..
121-123
..
117
..
112
111
..
110
66
66
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
109
97
108
107
1.26
118 -119
116
115 109
98
97
54
53
52
51
50
138
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
MACHINE SHOP(Continued)
Per-centile G V N S P 0 H
Per-centile
4948474645
107 66
95
106
105
117
115-'116
114113
108
96
.
64
4948474645
4443424140
106
64 10.1
1031.14
112
111 107
66
4443424140
3938373635
105
1.64
9310-2
101111 -113 110
108 -109
106
105
92
91
3938373635
3433323130
103
62
9.1.
ido
66
110
107
1.06
104
90
3433323130
292827262.5
102
101
10066
6897 108-109
107
105
104103
102-103101
89
.
88
2928272625
2423222120
66
.9' 8 89
96
95105 -106
104
102
101
10099
100
99
.
87
..
24232221
201918171615
9796
9587
94
68
102-103
101
98
97
9698
86
85
84..
1918171615
14
13
1211
10
94939291
86
8584
9291
9089
98-100
9795-96
.
95
9493
97
9694-95
8382
79-8177-78
14131211
10
98765
9089
8886-87
8381-82
80
78 -79
8886-87
8583-84
82
94
92-93
61
9290-91
8987-8882-86
9391-92
90
7675
74
98765
4321
4321
84-8583
73-82
7775-7673-7470-72
77-8176
63-75
89-9081-8868-80
8179-80
7860-77
89
88.
81-87
69-7368
47-6743-46
N =169M=I07.47SD= 11.79
N=166M= 96.78SD=10.54
N =186M=106.63SD =14.08
N=166M=117.39SD= 15.95
139
N=166M=114.34SD=17.49
N=166M=109.42SD= 11.85
N=166M= 97.42SD=16.47
163
160
135
150
1 IS
1.10
13.5
130
325
120
115
110
105
101)
05
00
(5
Sp
75
(55
(50
55
50
15
Mechanical Drafting and Design
In. Nom. Spoilt
140
Qvor ciricai Motor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGN
Per-.centile G V N S P Q K
Per-cenlile
9998979695
140138-139136-137133-135
132
126-137124-125120-123118-110
139-140135-138
134133
160-169154-159
153151-152
..
161-175157 -100151-156150-153148 -149
141-149142-143
..141
1:39-140
114-159111 -113137 -140135-130133-134
9998979695
94939291
90
131
15.0
117
116
132131130129
127-128
150
148-149
147..
146..
115
137-138136135
133 -131
132
132130-13112S-129
127125-126
9493929190
8988878685
129
12.8
127
115112-114
1.1.1
126..
125
147
1444:14C
144143142141140
130-131120128..
127
124123122121..
8988878685
84838281
80
126
125
110
109
..121..
123122
143
141.-142139
138
126
125
120
119118
8483828180
7978777675
121
123
121
12.6
140
138-139
137
136
124
123..
117
1.10
7978777675
74737271
70
122
12.1
108
107
119
118
137
134-136
135
. .
134133
..122..
121..
115114113..
112
7473727170
6968676665
120
1.66
117 133132
131
120..
119
111
110
6968676665
5163626160
119
118 105
116
115
1311:132
130
130
129
100108
107
64636201
60
5958575655
117
116
104114
128 -129
128127
126
118
116-117
106
105
104
5958575655
5453525150
115103
113
112127
125
12.4123
115
114
103
102
5453525150
141
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGN(Continued)
Per-
cenlae G V iV S P
49
48
47
46
45
114
113
162 Ill
66
125-126 122
121
120
119
44
43
42
41
0
101
160109 124
1'18
1'1
39
38
37
36
35
Ill 90
165
107
116
115
114
34
33
32
31
30
110
98
67
166
1.05
121-123
126
113
6'2.
29
28
27
26
25
109
96
95
164
163
113:119
117
Ill
6024
23
22
21
20
108
101
106
64
oi
102 116:116
160
16S
107
19
18
17
16
15
105
621
101
166
114
111 -113
106
105
14
13
12
11
10
104
103
..
..
91
90
89
99
98
110
104
103
9
8
7
6
5
102
101
100
99
97-98
94-06
93
85-92
88
87
..
86
-.
84-85
80-83
78-79
74-77
97
96
95
94
03
91-92
..
90
57-89
103- 109
107
..
105-106
104
101-103
81-100
101-102
100
99
98
97
43
2
1
94-06
90-93
85-89
71-84
Per.
0 R centile
49
48
47
46
101 45
113 44
43
42
41
40
.. 100 39
112 38
6 37
111 36
110 93 35
97 34
96 33
160 32
95 31
30
108 29
94 28
27
107 6 26
25
106 92 24
91 23
105 22
90 21
20
104 89 19
18
102 :103 88 17
S7 16
101 .. . 15
. 14
86 13
1011 84-85 12
09 83 11
10
98 82_
9
S
97 7..
96
04-95
78-81 6
75-77
74 4
93 72-73 3
g--N70-71 2
41-69 1
N=251 N=251 14=251 14=251 N=251 N=251 N =251M=115.16 M= 101.88 M=111.80 M=127.50 M= 122.55 M= 114.90 M=103.59SD= 10.46 SD= 10.22 SD= 12.16 SD= 14.32 SD = 17.34 SD= 12.57 SD =17.54
142
155
Plumbing and Sheet Metal
1:10
125
12(i1'
115I)
110
105(.
CHI
115
75
C);l
55
5()
45
\e Now.( )
Sp:01111 1.5,1 ii I. ON iii
143
KMotor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
PLUMBING AND SHEET METAL
Per.centile G V N S P Q K
Per-
cenlile
99
98
07
96
95
124
120-123
119
118
115
112-114
..
111
120
125
147
144-146
143
154
150-153
149
145-148
135
134
133
126-132
146
141-145
140
125-139
..
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
117
11.6
100-110
108
124
123
120-122
119
118
141-142
140
138-139
144
143
142
125
1.24
124
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
115
107
106
117
116
115
114
113
137
..
134-136
133
141
139-140
138
..
137
123
122
121 -123
89
88
87
SG
85
84
83
82
81
80
113-114
1.12
103 -105
112
111
110
109
131-132
. 130
128 -129
136
133-135
132
121
120
120
119
118
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
777675
111
110109
102108
127130 -131
129128
119 117116
115
7978777675
74
73
72
71
70
108
107 101
100
107
125-126
127
125-126
124
118
114
.
113
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65106
99
98
97
106
105
124 123
116-117 112
111
110
69
68
67
6665
64
63
6261
60
1.05
104 121 -123
120
122
115
109
64
6362
61
60
59
58
57
56
55104 66
103 118-119
117
115-116
..
114
120-121
119
118
114
113
108
59
58
57
5655
54
53
52
51
50
103
102
102111 -113
110 117
112111
107
106
54535251
50
144
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Scr.,e Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
PLUMBING AND SHEET METAL(Co ntinued)
Per-
centile G V N S P Q K
49
48
47
46
45
16i
95
6:1
101
100
108-109 115-116
111
110
616
105
104
103
44
43
42
41
40
100
99
63
92
66 1.67
113
112 108
107
.
102
39
38
37
36
35 6
oi 93 105 -106
111
110
109
106
1.05
101
34
33
32
31
3067
60 67
96
104
102-103
108
106-107
105
104
104
102-103 10090
29
28
27
26
25
66
95
89
ii 6 103
161
98
9796
24
23
22
21
20
9487
86
64
9. 3
101 102
101
100
99
106
66
95
.
64
93
19
18
17
16
15
93
92 85
92
6i
90
98 -100
6i
. 98
97
9.6 OS
92
91
90
14
13
12
11
10
91
90
..
84
83
86
87-88
89-96
ii
85 -87
95
94
85-93
84
81-83
97
89
88
9
87
6
5
89
888883-88
82
82
79-81
..
8685
ii
..
84
79-83
78
75-77
..
80
78-79
77
76
ie
95
87
8685
84
43
21
79-81
78
58-77
57
78
75 -77
74
77-83
76
61-75
60
74
64-73
68
00-75
59
58
94
88-63
87
79-83
7867-77
86
N=49M=101.47SD=11.74
N=49Nt= 94.07SD= 9.42
N=40M=101.1881)=12.44
N=49M = 121.08SD=19.11
146
N=49M=113.8881)=21.48
N=49M=110.18SD=10.84
Per-
centile
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
F6
35
34
:33
3231
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
N =49M=1G5.4291)=14.97
1'U
I)S
(1S
165160
155150
115110
133130
1.25120
115110
195100
9585
5)175
65(ill
5550
15
Power
and
Hom
e
Electricity
t. Verbal
NN
um.
SSpatial
1.46
Q
l'Intl
P.
Clerival
Nlotor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
POWER AND HOME ELECTRICITY
Per-centile G V N S P Q K
Per-cent&
99 135-147 120-131 136-143 153-156 155-163 1P-150 135-140 99
98 132-134 118-110 135 151-152 151-151 1 6-140 131-134 98
97 131 117 134 148-150 149-150 132-135 128-130 97
06 115-116 133 148 129-131 126-127 96
95 129-130 112-I14 132 147 147 .. 123-125 95
94 III 131 144-146 145-146 127-128 122 94
93 128 110 120-130 141-143 143-144 121 93
92 127 128 140 142 126 92
91 126 109 127 .. 140-141 . 91
90 126 138-139 120 90
S9
88
125
123-124
124-125
122-123 137
139
138
125 89
8887 122 121 134-130 136-137 87
86 "IS 135 124 119 86
85 120 133 134 118 85
84 121 107 .. ._ . 84
83 119 131 -132 133 123 83
82 120 106 11S 132 .. 82
81 116-117 .. 122 117 81
80 119 105 .. 131 121 SO
79 118 115 130 130 120 116 79
78 117 129 .. 78
77 114 128 115 77
76 116 119 114 76
75 1114 128-129 127 113 75
74 115 74
73 113 126 112 73
72 114 127 118 72
71 116-117 111 71
70 113 1(13 112 125 70
69 125-126 110 69
68 115 68
67 119 111 124 109 6766 108 66
65 102 123 65
64 111 110 64
63 122 114 107 6362 109 6261 110 101 124 105 61
60 121 60
59 105 113 105 59
58 140 120 104 58
57
56
199
66
10.7
119102-103 57
50
55 55
54 100 118 112 54
53 12i:123 117 53
52 108 6;3 1.11 52
51 101 51
50 116 110 50
147
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
POWER AND HOME ELETRICITY(Continued)
Per-
centile G V N S P Q KPer-
Gentile
49
48
47
46
45
107
106
97
66
105 120
118-.119
..
115
114
113 109 100
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
105
95
64
104
103
117
112
111
108
..
66
63
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
104
Oi
102
115 -116 110
109
107
106
105
..
97
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
103
102
62
101
100
114
111.-.113
1.63
107
104
96
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
101
100
91
90
99
110108-109 f06
105
104
103
102 -103
95
94
93
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
66
89
88
98
97
96
107
105 -106
102
101
100
99
101
92
91
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
98
67 37
95
64
104
102 -103
101
..
63
97
..
100
..
66
..
90
89
ii
87
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
96
95
94
86
85
93
92
91
90
98-100
97
95-96
92-94
96
95
Oi
93
98
..
97
86
85
83-84
82
14
13
12
11
10
98
7
6
5
93
92
90-91
89
87-88
ii
88
82
89
88
85-87
84
91
89-90
88
85-87
84
92
91
88-90
85-87
96
95
94
93
91-92
81
79-80
78
76-77
74-75
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
P4-86
83
81-82
66-80
81
80
74-79
63-73
83
82
77-81
72-76
81-83
78-80
71-77
65-70
84
83
72-82
65-71
89-90
88
87
84-86
73
72
66-71
37-65
4
3
2
1
N=207M=107.88SD =12.43
N=207M= 97.14SD=10.19
N=207M=100.36SD =13.39
N=207M=117.73SD =17.81
148
N=207M..115.88SD =18.13
N=207M=110.55SD =11.87
N=207M=101.66SD = 15.74
16
100
155
150
145
110
135
1:30
115
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
55
$0
75
70
65
GO
55
50
45
Printing and Graphic Arts
-4
Ctnt.
VVerbal
S
Num. Spatial Forsit I'. Clerical
149
Slotor
,
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTS--------Per-
centile G V P () HPer-
centile
99 136 126-133 130-136 154-156 156-162 137-141 135-144 9098 135 .. 129 153 155 134 9897 133-134 125 126-128 148-152 152-154 136 133 9796 123-132 123-124 125 147 150-151 134-135 132 9695 123-127 120-122 .. 144-146 1411 130-133 127-131 95
94 118-119 124 143 .. 129 126 9493 .. 123 .. 148 .. 9302 122 117 122 141-142 147 128 125 9291 115-116 121 145-146 126-127 124 9190 112-114 90
89 121 110-111 .. 140 144 125 123 S988 120 120 143 124 122 8887 119 119 138-142 .. 121 8780 11S 138-139 137 123 8685 109 120 85
84 118 116 -117 137 136 8483 8382 117 115 134.-136 1.3.5 119 8281 133 134 122 118 8180 116 1.14 131-132 SO
79 108 121 117 7978 130 133 7877 1.2.0 116 7776 115 107 113 128 -129 ..75 132 115 75
74 114 127 131 119 .7473
. . .. 7372 106 11.2 130 114 7271 125-.126 128-129 113 71711 113 126-127 118 112 70
69 101) 111 125 111 6968
, . 6867 i'ull 124 116-117 110 6766 11'2 110 123 109 6665 103 122 65
64 115 108 6463 124 6362 111 1-0.9 121 6261 102 120 6160 147 60
59 110 119 5958 5857 109 101 168 114 . 5756 107 118 10 6 5655 121.-12.3 105 55
54 108 100 104 5453 103 5352 1.00 120 117 102 5251 10.5 5150 113 50
150
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTS(Continued)
Per-centile 6 V N S P 0 K
Per-cent&
.4948474645
107
99104
118-119
117
116101 48
474645
44434241
40
106
105 103
103
115-116115
112
110.-111
100
9998
44434241
40
393837.3635
:34
333231
30
.
104.
. .
103
97..
1112
101
114
111 -113
114
118
112
1119
16.8
97..
95-9692-94
3938373635
6f'; 106 110
108-109
111
110109
61
34333231
30
2928272625
102
101
100
95
94
99
98107
108
107
107
106
90
89
2928272625
24232221
20
99
98
93
92
97
96105.-.106
106105
. .
105
104102-103
8887
24232'_'
2120
1918
17
16
15
97
066.1
91
9. 0
88-8985-87
. .
959493
104..
102-103101
. .
104
103101-102
i 0 1
. .
100..
8682-8579-81
19
1817
1615
1413
12
11
10
95
94
84
82-8381
6.2
98-10097
95-9694
89-93
inn999897
. .
99
.
78.
74 -7773
14
1312
11
10
9g765
92-93
91
9089
80
77 -7976
9189-9087-88
SG
85-8884
82-8381
, .
95-9694
oi
9897
9694-95
71-72
7.0
68-6965-67
9S
765
4
321
ii;
8784-86
7574
70-7368-69
77-8576
73-7569-72
79-8078
75-7774
929190
80-89
93
9.-9. 2087-89
63-6462
56 -61.49-55
4321
N=80 N=80 N =80 N =80 N=80 N=80 N=80M =107.47 M= 99.20 M=105.01 M =117.30 M =118.04 M= 112.34 M= 100.57SD= 10,93 SI.)= 19.28 SD= 12.11 SD = 18.19 SD=17.09 SD =10.88 SD=19.01
161
A1'
1'I.U
1)SC0
IiS
105100
155150
115110
135130
125120
115110
105100
9590
8580
7570
6560
5550
45
Welding
C V
Int.
Verbal
Num
.
Sp,
tial
Form
P.
Clerical
Motor
151
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
WELDING
Per-centile G V N S P Q K
Per-centile
99 133-139 119-125 130-141 148-153 153-162 138-146 136-144 9998 128-132 115-118 126-129 144-147 149-152 134-137 133-135 9897 125-127 112-114 125 147-148 131-133 130-132 9796 123-124 111 123-124 1.13 146 130 127-129 9695 122 110 122 140-142 144-145 129 125-126 95
94 119-121 109 121 138-139 143 123 124 9493 118 120 137 140-142 126 -127 121-123 9392 .. 108 118-119 . . 138-139 125 9291 117 107 116-117 134-136 137 . . 120 9190 116 106 136 124 . . 90
89 115 105 115 118-119 8988 104 114 133 1.3.5 . . 8887 103 113 134 123 117 8786 114 112 133 122 . . 8085 131 -132 132 121 115-116 85
84 113 102 111 130 120 114 8483 130 -131 . . 8382 112 101 128-129 119 113 8281 111 110 127 1.2.9 112 8180 118 80
79 100 125-126 128 111 7978 110 109 127 1161:117 . 787776 99
126125 115
110 777(3
75 108 109 75
74 109 108 7473 124 1.2.4 7372 108 123 107 7271 98 122 71
70 167 114 106 70
69 107 121 105 6968 104 6867 67 10.6 121 -123 120 6766 11.3 6665 .. 119 103 65
64 106 105 120 6463 . . 11.8 112 102 6362 95 6261 105 104 111 61
60 .. 118-119 117 60
59 5958 104 o 110 101 5857 103 116 5756 115 5655 103 117 109 55
54 94 102 114 100 5453 5352 102 66 5251 101 113 5150 115 -116 108 oi 50
153
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
WELDING(Continued)
Per-centile G V it S P Q
Per-K centile
49
48
47
46
45
101 03
92
100
99
114
1.12
111
107
97
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
100
90
91 98 111:113
110
..
109
108
107
106
105
9)1
1.))
44
43
42
41
40
3938
37
36
35
68
9.0
97
06
110
111-.109
106
..
105
104
102-103
.
04
92-93
.
61
39
38
37
36
35
3433
32
31
30
97
9(1
95
84
95
94
107
104
1.03
102
101
100
,
44
89
88
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
2)1
25
94
88
93
4,2
..
105-106
104
..
101
.
100
00 37
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
93
6,.2.
87
813
85
01
90
89
..
102 -103
101
98-100
64
68
97
68 86
.
35
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
61
90
SO
84
83
82
88
8G-87
85
95-97
64
92-93
96..
95
64
97
66
05
84
83
82
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
88S7
8685
84
81
80
84
83
82
79-81
01
89-90
92-93
91
0089
88
64
93
92
..
81
80
..
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
83
82
80-81
79
79
78
77
76
78
77
75-76'74
88
S5-S7
84
82-S3
79-81
87
86
85
84
81-83
41
89.-90
88
79
78
77
75-76
74
9
S
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
78
75 -77
61-74
75
73-74
67-72
05-66
71.78
69-70
67-68
59-66
75-78
74
69-73
55-68
80
77-79
74-76
60-73
86-87
82-85
65-81
72-73
69-71
63-6S
62
4
3
2
1
N =254M =101,26SD= 12.5?
N =254M= 92.96SD=10,33
N =259M= 99.49S = 13,99
N =259M =113.02SD= 17.78
N=254M = 112.380=-18.51
N =254M =107.76SD= 12.79
N=254M = 98.31SD= 15.76
154
A
T
TU1)
S
C0
S
165
00
155
150
115
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
SO
75
70
85
60
55
50
45
Accounting
C V QInt. Verbal Num, Spatial Form P. Clerical Nfotor
155
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
. ACCOUNTING
Per-centile G V N S P 0 K
Per-cenlile
99 139-144 131-135 145-150 150 -1511 1116 -175 155-171 142-167 99
98 136-138 126-130 143-144 147-149 162-165 151-154 141 98
97 135 124-125 142 144-146 158-101 148-150 140 07
96 134 122-123 141 141-143 155-157 146-147 138-139 96
95 133 121 140 140 150-154 143-145 135-137 05
94 132 120 137-130 138-139 147-149 142 134 04
93 131 110 136 137 145-146 141 133 03
02 118 135 134-136 140 132 . 92
91 60 .. 134 133 144 139 130-131 91
90 128-120 117 133 131-132 142-143 .. 129 90
80 127 132 141 137-138 128 8988 116 .. 140 88
87 126 131 130 130 66 126-127 87
86 145 130 135 125 86
85 125 128-120 138 124 85
84 124 .. 120 137 134 123 84
83 112-114 . . 122 83
82 111 127 136 133 121 82
81 123 123 135 132 81
80 110 80
79 127 1.34 131 120 79
78 122 126 125-126 78
77 160 133 130 77
76 125 119 7675 121 132 1.2.9 75
74 . . 118 74
73 124 131 .. 73
72 120 130 128 . 72
71 123 124 129 127 117 71
70 119 108 126 70
60 .. 116 60
68 122 128 125 68
67 118 127 115 67
66 107 66
65 126 124 114 65
64 121 64
63 117 121:123 125 123 113. 63
62 106 120 62
61 .. 61
60 124 122 112 60
50 116 119 121 59
58 105 120 58
57 123 120 111 57
56 143 56
55 115 110 55
54 104 117 118-119 122 5453 lit) 109 5352 5251 114 103 116 121 5150 117 108 50
156
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota. Area Vocational-Technical Schools
ACCOUNTING(Continued)
Per-centile 0 V N 5 P 0 K
Per-cent ile
4948474645
113
112
1.09
101 115
115.-116
120
119
118
118
11(1 -117
107
166
4948474645
4443424140
111 100 114
114
111 -113
. 117
116115
105104
103
44434241
40
3938373635
110113
112110
115
114
113 114
1.92
101
3938373635
3433323130
109
98
67
111
64
108-109
1":7
112111
113
100
9998
34333231
30
2928272625
108
107 oc.,
109
105.-106
104
110
109
108112
.
67,
66
2928272625
24232221
20
106
105
104
95
108
107102-103
101
107106
105
111
110
10.9
95
64.
93
24232221
20
1918171015
103
102
64
6
106
1.95
.
..98-100
9. 7.
104
103
.
108
92.
91
90
191817
1615
14131211
10
101
10099
62.
61
..
104
103
102
95-9692-94
ai
102101100
6
107
106
105..
89
8887
14
13
12
11
10
98765
. .
97-98969594
90
ia
8887
101
1009998
. -
89-9088
85-8784
9897
95-969493
104101-103100
66
8685
83-848281
98765
43
2
1
9391-9287-9077-86
85-8684
80-8374-79
96-9795
C '941 -92
82-8379-8175-7871-74
9290-9188-8967-87
9897
93-9681-92
77-8073-7663-7235-62
4
3
21
N =39851 =113.52SD = 11.43
N =308M =103.02SD= 10.48
N =398M =116.78SD =12.38
N =308M =114.38S D=16.20
157
N =398M =120.52SD = 17.54
N =398M =119.9891)=13.63
N =398M =107.18SD = 17.56
101
155
150
115
110
135
1311
123
120
115
110
1115
100
05
(1(1
85
5(1
75
70
('5
55
SO
15
Chefs and Cooks
7.
VerbalN
Nmn. Sp: Oaf
158
(s)
1,0E n l'. Cie ica1K
Ntolor
.1
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
CHEFS AND COOKS
Per-
centile C V e 0 KPer-
centile
99
98
97
96
95
129
128
129
125-128
120-124
119
112-118
132
130-131
129
128
150
143-149
141-142
140
138-139
147
142-146
..
141
138-140
143
139-142
130-138
129
127-128
140
133-139
.
132
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
94
93
92
91
90
..
123-127
121-122
120
..
Ill
110
109
127
122-126
137
134 -136
133
..
131-132
137
130
135
134
126
125
..
131
130
129
89
88
87
86
85
118-119
117
116 108
119-121
11.5 1.30
133
132
131
124
127-12S
126
125
124
123
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
115
114
107
106
105
115-117
114
128-129
127
123 -126
124
130
129
128
126-127
123 121-122
120
119
118
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
113 161
103
113
112
111
..
121-123
120
118-119
125
..
124
..
122
..
120 -121
117
116
115
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
112
..
111
110 102
110
109
108
117
115 -116
..
123
119
..
115-118
..
..
114
..
113
7'4
73
72
71
70
09
68
67
60
65
109
108
471101
107
190
114
111-113
122
121 1111
112
..
111
110
69
68
67
00
65
61
63
62
61
60
106
105
100
66
196
1101.2.0
113
109
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
104
08
97
104
103
108 -109
119
117-118
116
112
110-111
108
107
105-106
104
..
59
58
5750
55
54
53
52
51
50
103
102
90
95 106:102
107
..
115
114
113
1.66
103
54
53
52
51
50
159
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
CHEFS AND COOKS(Continued)
Per-
centile G V N S P Q KPer-
centile
4948474645
101
t105 -106
112
111
108
107106105
1024948474645
44434241
40
100
99
63 99 104
109-110108'
104
101
.160
4443424140
313
38373635
98
97
96
62
102-103 1j7
106
105
102-103
9998
Oi
39383731;
35
3433323130
95
93-94
91
66
98
Oi
101
98 -100
10:7-104
102
101 9695
Oi
93
3433323130
29282726
2592
8996
92-9591
67
..95-9692-94
141
99-100
10062
oi
87-90
2928272625
2423222120
91
89-9088
88
ai
90
685-88
oi
89 -90
98
Oi
96
99
6
2423222120
1918171615
8786
85
86
84 -85
83
84
81 -83..
..
88
8-87
95
9.4.
9392
98
oi
8584
82-8381
1918171615
1413121110
8482 -83
8180
71-79
82.
77-8176
SO
7978
76-77..
..
ii
82-83
89-91
ia
66
aO
iO
14131211
10
98765
7066-69
6515
ii
75
67 -74
6661-65
8175-80
74
69 -73
87
83-8682
79-81
9.5
94
89 -93
78
7.7
7.6.
98765
4321
6462-63
61
73
67-7266
6057-5954-56
53
6866-67
65
7874-7769-73
68
ii
80-8779
7.5
62-7431
4321
N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61 N=61M=100.16 M- 95.38 M= 99.82 M=106.39 M=111.61 M=109.30 M=102.33SD-16.60 SD -12.35 SD=17.58 0=19.20 SD=17.76 SD=12.68 SD=19.15
160
16-
)60
155
150
145
140
135.1
I' 1:30
125
120
I) 115
li110
S 105
() IINI
I(95
s
Ml
75
71)
65
60
55
50
45
Clerical Training
L t.V
Verbalrt
NanS
Spati..1
161
For 0 P. Clerical motor
1
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
CLERICAL TRAINING
Per-
centile 6 V N S P 0 HPer-
centile
99 133-145 125-137 137-144 143-156 159-171 156-166 145-159 99
98 130-132 122-124 134-136 141-142 157-158 151-155 141-114 98
97 128-129 120-121 132-133 138-140 155-156 152 -153 140 97
96 126-127 119 131 137 152-154 151 137-139 96
95 125 118 1311 134-136 151 149-150 135-136 95
94 124 . 117 133 148-150 146 -148. . 94
93 123 116 129 131-132 147 141.145 134 93
92 .. 115 128 .. 145-146 143 133 92
91 122 127 130 144 142 132 91
90 121 112 -114 126 128-129 143 141 131 90
89 125 139-140 130 89
88 120 111 124 127 142 .. 129 88
87 119 123 141 138 87
86 118 110 122 125 -126 140 137 128 5685 . . 139 136 85
84 117 121 138 127 84
83 169 120 . . 135 126 83
82 116 137 134 125 82
81 . . 119 136 81
80 115 124 12.4 80
79 114 118 135 133 79
78 108 78
77 117 13.4 1:32 123 77
76 113 131 122 76
75 107 116 133 12] 75
74 121-123 130 74
73 112 106 132 129 73
72 115 126 72
71 111 131 128 71
70 105 1°26 127 70
69 114 130 126 69
68 110 119 CS
67 113 118 -i19 129 118 67
66 66
65 109 104 128 65
64 112 117 125 64
63 117 63
62 127 62
61 163 103 111 115-116 .. 116 61
60 126 60
59 124 59
58' 110 12.5 115 58
57 107 102 114 57
56 123 114 56
55 10.9 124 55
54 54
53 106 111 -113 113 53
52 101 108 123 52
51 122 51
50- 110 112 50
162
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
CLERICAL TRAINING(Continued)
Per-
centile G V N S P QPer-
K cenlile
49 105 100 107 122 121 49
48 108-100 III 4847 1'2) 47
46 104 66 126 1.19 46
45 106 120 45
44 107 109 4443 103 98 119 4342 105 108 4241 102 119 41
40 97 105 -106 1.I8 40
39 107 3938 104 117 3837 10.1 3730 10.3 10.4 116 118 106 3635 91 116-117 35
34 100 115 105 3433 102 :15 3332 102-103 114 104 3231 99 3130 95 101 113 114 103 3029. .. 101 102 2928 98 112 2827 9-100 2726 97 64 1011 III 2625 97 113 101 25
24 . 2423 96 93 99 110 2322 9-06 109 2221 112 100 21
20 95 92 98 94 108 99 20
19 92-93 107 1 1 1 1018 91 91 97 110 OS IS17 .. . 1.7
16 90 91 1011 109 97 1615 63 96 911 15
14 95 89-90 105 108 95 14
13 92 811 104 107 94 1312 94 103 106 93 1211 61 88 93 88 1112 105 92 11
10 101 1(14 01 III
9 90 87 92 85-87 100 101-103 00 0S 89 86 01 84 99 .. 88-80 S
7 88 90 82-83 100 87 7
6 87 85 88-89 .. 07-98S 86 87 SI 95-96 99 86
4 85 84 85-86 78-8(1 94 97-95 .84-85 4
3 84 83 81-84 75-77 91-93 95-96 82-83 32 82-83 81-82 79-80 74 83.90 93-94 76-81 21 73-81 70-80 50-78 61-73 42-82 78-92 4._5-75 I
N=551 N=551 N=551 N=551 N=551 N=551_
5=551N4=105.19 M =100.27 -M =107.98 N1=109,26 N1=121.25 M=121.00 N1=111.25SD= 11.80 SD=10.03 SD=12.98 81)=18.68 SD = 17.05 SD=14.31 SD =15.54
163
A1
U1)
S0
ItS
ItNI
155150
145140
135130
12.5ISO
115110
105100
9585
8075
7065
6055
5045
Cosm
etology
G V
Int
Verbal
Num
.
Spatial
Form
1'.
Clerical
Motor
164
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms f'rMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
COSMETOLOGY
Per-
(eel& G V N S P Q KPer-
cengIe
99
98
97
96
95
130-138
127-129
126
125
126-139
124-125
123
122
121
138-142
132-137
129-131
128
126-127
147 -ISO
138-146
137
163-176
160-162
158-159
157
156
151-176
149-150
147-148
146
145
144-163
141-143
.
140
138-139
99
98
97
90
95
94
93
92
91
90
124
123
122
119-120
118
116-117
115
112-114
125
124
123
121-122
134-130
133
..
131-132
154-155
153
151-152
150
149
144
143
142
140-141
139
135-137
134
132-133
131
130
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
8685
121
120
119
118
117
111
110
120
119
118
117
130
128 -129
148
. .
147
146
145
138
137
136
129
128
127
126
125
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
SO
116
115
109
108
116
115
127
125 -126
144
143
135
.
124
123
122
84
83
82
S I
80
79
78
77
76
75
114 107
114
113
142
141
140
134
133
132
121
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
113
112
106
112 124 136
138
..
131
129 -130
120
116
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
111
165
111
110 121 -123
137
136
135
128
127
126
118
fl,.
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
110
104
109
. .
126
134
133
132
125
124
1'10
115
04
63
62
61
60
59585756
55
109
108
103
102
108
107
106
118 -119
117
131
130
123
114
113
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
107
101
105
115-116
129
128
122
112
111
110
54
53
52
51
50
165
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
COSMETOLOGY(Continued)
Per-
centile G V N S P QPer-
K centile
49
48
47
46
45
106
105
100
99
1.04
114 127
1.26
121
120
109
108
49
48
47
46
45
--44 111-113 44
43 103 125 43
42 104 1'1'0 107 42
41 119 41
40 124 106 40
39 103 97 108-109 39
38 102 105 38
37 102 12.3 37
36 167 122 104 36
35 101 96 101 103 35
34 121 118 102 34
33 33
32 16.0 100 105 -106 120 3231 95 116-117 31
30 99 99 104 119 101 30
26 29
28 98 118 115 28
27
26
2597
. .
94 98 102 -103 I 1 i
1)6
100
66
27
26
25
24 . . 101 114 24
23 96 97 115 98 2322 93 97 22
21 98-100 113 21
20 91-95 9. 2 114 96 20
19 . . 96 97 1918 91 95 113 112 1817 9. 3 95-96 95 1716 94 112 111 1615 . . 90 93 111 110 15
14 . . . 94 110 94 1413 9. 2 89 92 . . 109 93 1312 109 108 91-92 1211 91 88 91 92-93 . . 90 11
II) 90 91 108 107 89 10
9 89 87 90 107 87-88 98 86 . . 89-90 100 141 87 88 88-S9 . 88 104-105 105 8. 0 76 87 84-85 87 . . 85 (1
5 83 80 85-87 103 104- 84 5
4 85-86 . . 85 4 102 .. 82-83 .1
3 84 82 83-84 79-83 100-101 102-103 79-81 32 81-83 80-81 76-82 75-78 95-99 100 -101 73-78 21 76-80 76-79 69-75 71-74 83-94 93-99 62-72 1
N =249 N=249 N =249 N =249 N =249 N=249 N =249M=105.61 M=100.53 M= 105.42 M=112.64 M =128.27 M=122.93 M= 109,82SD= 11.72 SD= 10.54 SD = 12.19 SD= 15.80 SD= 16.23 SD= 12.74 SD= 18.11
166
S
S
1115
11,0
151
150
1.15
110
155
120
121
120
115
110
] 05
11/0
h5
75
711
55
so
IS
Data Processing
Num. Sp. tia 1 Firm ti P. Clerival Nlotur
167
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
DATA PROCESSING
Per-
centile G V N S P 0 KPer-
centile
9998979695
143-155136-142
135133-134
132
128-139127
124-126123
147-151145-146143-144141-142
140
147-153143-146141-142138-140
..
165-168158-164155-157153-154
152
154-101153152
149-151143
143-146140-142137-139135-136
134
9998979095
9493929190
131130129
127-123. ,
122
121
120
139137-138
130135
, .
137134-136
..
..133
151150
147-149145-146
144
145-147144
142-143141
140
132-133131130..
127-129
9493929190
8988878685
126119
118117116
134
13.3
132131
. .
131-132
130
143. .
142
139138
136-137135
126125124123
8988878685
8483828180
125
124115..
112-114
130129128127126
128-129. .
141140
138-130137
134
1.3.3
132
122
121
8483828180
7978777675
123
122 111
125
121
127
. . .
125-126
13.6
131130
129
120
119
7978777675
74737271
70
1.21
110
123
12.2
..
135134.. .
13.3
128
118
117
7473727170
6908G7
6665
..120
119
109121120
119
124. . 132
131
127126
125
116
115
6968676665
6463626160
118
117 118
121-123..
130
12.9124
. .
114113
112
0463626160
5958575655
116
108
107117
116
120
118-119
128
127
..
123
111
5958575655
5453525150
115
114
10.6115
114 117
12.6
125
122
12.1
110
109
5453525150
168
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
DATA PROCESSING(Continued)
Per-centile G V N S P Q K
Per-centile
4948474645
113 105
104
1.13
112I I i-116
124
123
120 108
107
4948474645
4443424140
112
111103 111
1.10
114
1.2.2
121
119106
105
4443424140
3938373635
110
102
101
109 111 -113
120119
118
118. .
116-117115
104
103
3938373635
3433323130
109
108100
108
107
110117
114
102 3433323130
2928272025
107
106
66 1.66
108-109
107
116
1.1.5
M.:114
113
1.1.2
.1.61
100
2928272625
2423222120
105
104
98
97
105
10.4
105 -106
104
1.1.2
111
110 .
9993979695
2423222120
1918171615
1039.6 .
1.9.3
1.0210`1 -103
101
1 1 1
110108-109
1.09
108106-107
94
93. .
92
1918171615
1413
12I I
10
102
101
95
94
93. .
101
106
. .
98-10097
95-95
107103-106
102101
09-100
105
102 -104
101
919089
87-8886
1413121110
98765
10099989796
92
61
. .
990897
95-9693-94
91
92-9391. .
98
67
9695
100
66
98
85848382
98765
4321
9592-9488-9185-87
9089
86-8878.35
9290-9184-8975-83
88-9084-8778-8374-77
9491-9384-9078-83
. .
9790-9681 -89
80-8173-79
7762-76
4321
N=157 N=1157 N=167 N =157 N =167 N=157 N=1674.00 14..105.52 M=115.04 M=115.61 M=124.14 M=120.77 M=108.16
SD= .1.47 SD= 10.11 SD = 12.08 SD= 14.66 SD= 17.00 SD=14.49 SD= 15.37
169
165
160
155
150
1.15
110
Dental Assistant
125
121)
115
no
ti 305
(1 100
11
h.
90
b5
SO
75
70.
65
GO
55
50
45C X'
N'erhalN
Num,S
Spatial
170
Q
Fur it 1'. ClericalIC
Motor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
DENTAL ASSISTANT
Per-cenlOr G V N 3 P Q K
Per-cenlile
.9993979995
138130-137
129
141
132-140131
120-130125
135
13(1-134129
..128
15
1,, :521511
114-119114
168
107164-100
163
154153
, .
152
151141-150
110133-139
099897911
95
9493
9291
90
125-128
124
1.23
124
123
..127
126..
125
111-.12140
138-139137
131-136
158-162157
15414 59153152
. .
151
144-150143
132
43.1
. 1.30
94
939291
90
898387SO
S5
. .
122120-121
119
122121
..120
..124
123
122
121
130
128-129127
125-126
151
150
149
142140-141
139
133
.
127-12912)1
125
S9
8S
878685
e4838281
80
1.13
110110-113
120118-119
117 42.4
..146-148
145. .
141
130-137135134
121
84S3
8281
80
7978777675
117
11.0
1.15
..
116
1.1.5 121 -123
1.43
1121.11,
133
132
. .
..121-123
. .
7978777675
7473-
7271
70
115
11 4
113
112-.114
Ill
114
113 120
140
139
131
130120
74737271
6968676065
112 110
109
112
111
..118-119
117115-116
138129
128
.. 096367
0665
64636261
60
1 1 1
1.10
103
107
1.1.0 141137
136
..127126
119118
64(13
6261
(10
5958575655
106105
16111 -113
135
134
125
124
1.1.7
5053575655
54535251
50
109
104
1.03
110
108-.109
133
132
123
121 -122
116
115
54
535251
50
171
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
DENTAL ASSISTANT(Continued)
Per-centile G Y N S P 0
Per-K centile
49 10848'47 1074(1
4:5 106103
107100 13.1
130
120
. .
114113
49
48474645
4443 1054241
40 1.0.4
102 10-5
16.7 129
128
1.27
119 112 94
434241
40
3938373035
1.01
104105-1011
. .
126124-125
123122
118
116 -117
111
110
3938
373635
3433 103323130
100103
102101
10 -1
. .
121
. .
119-120118
109
34.33
3231
30
2928272625' 102
99
98
100
69
95 102.-103
117
115 108
107
102-106
2928272625
24232221 101
200-7.
117
94-96
9.3
10.1
116
115
114101
2423222120
19 99-100IS 95
17 96-971615 . .
OO
95
..
9288-91
87
9S-10097
95-96
114
11-3
110-112
113111-112
110
109
10009OS
19
18
17
16
15
14 951312 92.-9. 4
11 ..10
oi8. 6.
85
94
92-93
91
109
108
106 -107
108
106-107105
102-104
6..7
96
95
1413
1211
10
9 91876 87-965 86
39929190
84
ii
82
86-.9088
85-87. .
105
104
98-10397
101
100
6
9219491
88-9007
98765
4 853 842 75-831 74
87-8986
81-8580
70-8169
64-6863
84..
82-8381
93-9692
90-9189
98.
ii
ia83-85
82
43
21
N=52M=107.80SD=11.97
N=52M =105.08SD= 11.71
N=52M =105.49SD =14.00
N =52M=111.42SD =18.05
N=52M =129.90SD = 18.03
N=52M=122.92SD= 14.05
N=52M=113.29SD= 13.j3
172
16.5
If RI
155
150
145
140
135
Interior Design and Sales Assistant
110
S 105
o 100
Ifo5
S 90
55
SO
75
5:5
50
.15
Verbal Num. (jai For n P.
173
QClerical :Motor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
INTERIOR DESIGN AND SALES ASSISTANT
Per-centile G V N S P Q H
Per-centile
99-98
979695
139135-138
134133132
135128-134
127120-126
136130-135
129..
128
156154-155
153
1.63
159 -162
161
158-160157
152-156..
149141-148
1.49
999897
909.5
94939291
90
126-131125121123122
119116-118
..115
123-127122121
120_ ..
117-152144-146
153
157
153-150152
151
145-150144
.e.'":".
143
.
133-139132131
94
939291
90
8988878685
121
120
112-114
1 11
..110
139
1 1 6:1 IS
115
1.43
150-151
1.49
140-112139
137-138
330
130..
129128127
8988578685
84838281
80
119
118
117
199 114113112
141.-1421.48
..135134
126125
124123
84838281
80
7978777675
1*16
108 111
1119 ..147140
148-145
133132131
130129
122121
120119
..
7978777675
74737271
70
115
114107 119
134-139
133
140-142
139
.. .
128127126
118
.
7473
7271
70
6968676665
113
112
1033
105
1091:31 -132 13S
137135-136
134
125
12.4
..
117
116
69686766135
64636201
60
1081U7
106
1301.33
13.1
131123
115
64
6362
61
60
5958575655
111
110
101
105
..
126-129
130129
128122
114
113112
110-111
5958575655
5453525150
109 103 104
.7127
125.-126127
121
120119
109
1.08
54535251
50
174
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical SchoolsINTERIOR DESIGN 4ND SALES ASSISTANT
(C.. foinued)
Per-
centile G V. N S P Q H centile
Per-
49484746 ..45 .. 102
103
126
118
116.-417
107
106
9948474645
44 1118
434241
40
102
124
12.5
124
115
114
10544434241
40
39383736 10735
101 101
100
123
122
113104
103
3938373635
34333231 10630
100
99
66
121-.123
121
112
110.-.111
102
101
3433323130
2928 10.5
272625
f.)
96-98120
120
119118
109
108
10099
96-98
2928272025
2423 104
222!20 102-103
97
90
ri
11S-119
117
115-416
117
116
95
.
64
2423222120
19 101
1817
16
15 100
95
94
93-94
92
91
1.1.4
114-115113..
112111
107
IOC
93
19IS
17
16
15
14
13 .
12 09.
11
10 98
63
6,2
908988
80-8785
111 -113
110108-109
10710:5-106
.
105..
104100-103
99
.
90 -92
8.6
..
14
131211
10
0 978 ..7 966 91-955 90
86-9 1
87-8886
8. i
81-8380
110
108-109102-107
. .
104103
102100-101
99
9897.
95-9694
8887
83-8681-82
80
98765
4 85-893 8421 83
8584
73-8372
76-7975
70-7469
101
92-10091
86-98858483
92-9391
89-9088
73-79
72
4321
N=5416 =100.85SD =10.65
N=54M=102.72SD= 10.08
N=54M=103.41SD =13.00
=54M =127.13SD = 13.53
N =54M=128.82SD=16.3.5
N =54M =119.81SD = 16.23
N =54M=108.85SD = 10.97
175
S
011
S
Ir.;
Inn
155
150
115
14if
135
130
125
120
110
105
100
95
70
05
00
55
50
45
Medical Lab Assistant
ti Vhut. Verbal Num. Spatial For n P. Clerical :\ loon.
176
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT
Fee-ceno'!e G V N S P 0 K
Per-cenlile
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
145
144
143
..
142
143
138-142
137
136
146 ,,
139.145
138
163
151-152
150
168
167
166
161-105
160
167
166
165
..
164
146
137-145
136
135
134
99
98
97
96
95
141
140
139
136,138
135
134
135-137
134
133
148-149
147
159
158
155-157
154
157-163
156
154-155
153
151-152
133
..
132
..
131
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
135
134
133
132
131
132
144 -446
150 -153
150
147-149
146
145
144
130
129
89
88 .
87
SO
85
84
83
82
81
80
133
130
129
128
127
126
131
130
128-129
143
..
141-142
149
143
128
127
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
132
131
125
127 140
138-139
148
147
142
141
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70 130
124
126
137
146
145
140
139
138
126 74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
123
122
125
124
134-430
144
143
136-137
135
125
124
123
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
129
128
127
121
120
123
122 133
142
141
134
133
.
122
121
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
126
125
124
119
121
120
119
118
131 -132
139-140
138
137
132
131
120
.
119
59
58
57
56
55
5452
52
51
50
123
122 118
117
116
139
136
135
130
129
118 54
53
52
51
50
177
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT(Continued)
Per-centile G V N, S P Q
Per-K centile
49
48
47
46 121
45
117
116
115
112-114
115
128-129
127
13.4
133
128
127
126
125
117
116
4948
47
46
45
44
13
42 1.20
41
40 119
1)) 114
125-126 132
..
131
130
124
115
114
113
44
43
42
41
40
39 118
3S
37 117
36
35
110
113
1.2.4
129
128
127
..
123
110 -112
39
33
37
36
35
34
33 116
32
31'
30 115
109
112
126
..
125
124
122
120-121
166
:34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27 114
26
25
1.68
111
110 121-123
123
12.2
119
:.)8
107
29
28
27
26
25.
24
2a22 113
21
20
107
106
109
120
..
118-119
117
115-116
120-121
119 118
106
105
104
..
103
24
23
2221
20
19 112
18
17 114--
16 109-110
15 108
105
104
108
7107
114
111-113
..
110
118
115-117
114
113
116 -117
115
.
106-102
99
96-98
95
19
18
17
16
15
k(I
14
13 1.07
12
11
10 106
103
102
101
106
,
105
..
104
108-109
107
112
105-111
104
..
114
113
109-112
108
94
53
92
14
13.
12
11
10
9
8 100-105
7 99
6 95-98
5 94
100
99
98
103
92-102
91
88-90
87
..
102-106
101
103
97-102
96
..
95
107
100-106
99
91
00
89
9
8
7
6
5__
4 87-93
3 86
2 85
1 8489 -97
88
8685
e4
92-100
91
89-90
88
87-94
86
63-85
62
92-98
91
83-90
82
85-88
84
63-83
02
4
3
2
1
1,1=49M=121.29SD= 13,54
34=.49M=110.33SD= 12.19
34=49M=117.24SD= 13.04
N =49M= 127,71SD= 15.14
N =49M=131.73SD=20.72
1+1=49M=128.92SD= 17.413
11=49M =114.39SD= 15.71
178
A
Practical Nursing
135
P 130
125
120
1) 115
110
105C
100
11
93
90
S5
SO
70
(35
60
45
hit.V
Verbal Num.ti
Spatial
179
Form 1'. Clericalis
:1 rotor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini Score Training Norms forMinnesota Areo. Vocational-Technical Schools
PRACTICAL NURSING
Per-centile G V N S P Q K
Per-centile
9998979695
137-157131-136
133131-132129-130
137-141134-136132-133129-131127-128
133-157136-137
135134
132-133
143.156147
143-146141-142
110
164-173163
161-162158-160156-157
161-176156-160154-155152-153
151
149-179146-148143-145141-142
140
9998979695
9193929190
128., , ,
127. .
126
126125124
. .
123
. .
131130129128
138-139
137131-136
154-155152-153
151148-150146-147
150147-149145-146
144
133-139135-137
134133
9493929190
8988878685
125
12.4
122121120
127126
. .
125
133
131 -132
145144
143
143142
. .
141140
132131
130
1.2.9
8988878685
84838281
80
123
122
121
119
118
124123122
121
130
128-129. . .
142
1.41
1.49
1.39
138
128
127
1.26
84833281
80
7978777675
120
119
117
110
120
119
127
125 -126
139
13S
137136
. .
135
125
12.4
123. .
7978777675
7473727170
118
117
115
112 -114
111
118
11712.4
137136
135
131122
121
7473727170
6968676665
110
115
110
116
115121 -123
134
133
133
132131130
.
120
119
6968676665
6463626160
114
109
11.4 129132
131
129
128127
118
117
64636261
60
5958575655
113
108 113
112
118 -119
. .
130
129
126. .
1.25
116
.
115
5958575655
5453525150
112
107
106111
117. .
115 -116
123. . .
. .
127124 1111
.
113
5453525150
180
GENERAL APTITUDE, TEST BATTERY
Protect Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
PRACTICAL NURSING(ci,niinutta)
Per-centile G V N S P Q K
Per-renlile
4948474645
111
110 105
110114
111 -113
126
125
123112
49
48474645
44
434241
40
169194
109
108
110
108-109
124
123
122
12.1
111
.
110
44434241
40
Z'1
38373635
108
103 107
107
122
121120119
120
119
109
108
3938373635
3433
3231
30
107
106
102
106
105105 -106
118
11.7
118
107
196
105
3433323130
2928272625
105
104
101
100
104
103
104..
102-103
116..
115
114
116 -117
115
.
104103102
2928272625
24232221
20
103
102
66
98
102 101
..
..113
.
112..
1111
113
101
2423222120
19
181716
15
101
100
97
101
10099
98-100
97
95-96
111
110
109108107
..112..
111
100
99
98
1918171615
14
13
1211
10
99
9897
96
95
98
67
96
9.4
92-93
oi
106
105104..
110
109108..
9796
9594
14
13
1211
10
98765
96.
95.
9493
94
92-939190
95
9491-93
90
89-9088
84-8782-83
103101-102
10097-9995-96
107
105-106101-104
100
92-9390-9188-89
8783-86
98765
c43
21
9291
88-9062-87
8938
84-8770-83
88-8987
85-8668-84
8175-80
7468-73
93-9491-9289-9060-88
9997-9894-9682-93
8276-8164-7539-63
4321
N=50954-111.33SD=11.47
N=509M=107.3881)=11.33
N =509M=111.00SD= 12.47
N =509M=113.43SD =10.88
181
N =509M=125.77SD =17.58
N = 509M=126.06SD =14.93
N =509M=112.51SD=17.55
S
It
S
1,15
1(s0
155
150
1.15
110
1:35
110
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
85
80
/7;
70
.15
Sales
Nam.S
Sp: tin]
182
P 0Farm P. Clerical Nfotor
GENERAL APTITUDE VEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
SALES
Per-
centile G V 0' KPer -
centile
99
98
97
9695
142-144
141
140
129-130
122-137
121
119 -121)
117-118
116
135-153
134
132-133
131
151-156
150
144-149
143
141-142
163
155-162
153-154
152
149-151
142-114
141
135-140
..
135
136-138
132-135
131
130
127-129
99
OS
97
96
95
94
93
92 125-125
91
90
128
127
124
115
112 -114
919
130
128-129
127
126
125
140
138-139
137
134-136
148
146-147
145
144
134
132:133
126
125
..
124
..
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87 122
SO
85
..
-123
121
110
124.
123
133
131-132
130
139-143
138
137
..
136
131
130
129
123
122
121
..
..
89
888726
25
84
83
8281
80
120
119
109 122
..
121
120
128 -920
135
134
128
126-127
125
120
119
84
S3
82
81
80
79 117-118
78
77
76
75
116
16s
119
118
127 6.3
132
124
118
..
117
116
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
115
114
107
106
117
196
125 -126
131
123
122
115
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
113
112
105
104
115
119
129
129-130
128
127
126
125
121
120
..
114
..
..
113
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
199 103 113 121 -923
129
123
122
fig
..
112
111
110
109
64
63
62
61
50
59
58
57
56
55
110
109
192 112
111
110
120
118-119
121
120
118
116 -117
108
..
107
59
58
57
56
55
.54
53
52
51
50
108
101
100
109
-11.7
115 -116
119
118
115
106
16.5
5453
52
51
50
i83
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
SALES(Continued)
Per-centile G V N S P Q
Per-K cent&
4948474045
10.7
6106
107114
11711.4
104103102
4948474645
44431241
40
106
105 98106
111 -113
110
110
1.1
112
..
101
100
44434241
40
3938373635
104
10.397
105
104
108-109
107
105-106
114
113112111
112 99
393S373635
3433323130
162
101
9695
9.1
102
162104
110
10. 9.
111110
9897
96
3433323130
292S272625
100
996
101
100
102 -103..
101
108107106..
105
109 95
.
9493
2928272625
24232221
20
..98
92
6
6
6
98-100104
102102
108 92
9.1.
00
2423222120
1918171615
97
06
90
697..
96
97
95-60
101
99-10097-98
96
10.7
106
6
88
1918
171615
14131211
10
..
9.5.
..
88
ii ,.
..
95
6.4
oi
6
92 -93
91.
6
9.4.
105
104
. 81
6
14131211
10
98765
94
9391-9288-90
84 -85
83
..92
90-9189
89-9088
85-8784
79-83
692
90-9189
102 -103101100
..
83-S58281
79-80
9
8765
4321
85-878483
79-82
8281
6
86-8885
81-8478-80
7875-77, 7471-73
8885-8782-8477-81
9.9.
91-9878-90
7875-7769-7460-68
4321
N =108M =108.22SD = 12,53
N.108M = 31.89Si) 10.12
N =108M =109.04SD= 12.89
N =108M =113.67SD =17.78
N =108M =118.29SD =18.38
N =108M=116.03SD =11.14
N =108M =104.28SD=15.32
184
AI)
SO
ItS
so75
7(1fu
13055
5045
Secretarial
Training
t. 1)31
Nun).
SSpatial
185
I)
Fur
11P.
rit
Motor
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
SECRETARIAL TRAINING
Per-renlile V 1
112.151139-111Ils
137
136
135
13 1
131132131
130
129
S P () hPer.
renlile
99949796
95
9193929190
59
Ns57sos5
41sl.2slSO
7!)78777675
74
73
72
71
70
137.111135.136
III131
132
131
330
129
125
127
126
125
121
123
131.113132.13 1129431127.12"
126
121121
121
122
121
121)
119
I Is
113.156111.112
1 In13s139
137
131.1301.13
111-132
130
12S -129
127
301.169101.16211s.119
156.157
111-111
152-1531.10-11111..119
137316
115111113
112 ____
Ill110
1:19
301.171102.161156161111.1'15112.113
151
119.1.10117-114115.116III113
112111
III)
139
1:35
1:37
1136
1:35
153.379111.153149.150
I is146.147
114.115143
111.1121 lo139
1:34
337
136
1:15
131333
132131
.
130129
128
9995979691
9193
929190
594'S7s655
s5342
`I50
7974717675
74
73
72
71
70
125
320-127
125-126
.
122
.
121
117
110
125
124
123
32.1
___
1.3S
31.7
120
119
115
112-114
122
121
121-123
136
135
134
.
127
126
69
68
67
66
65
118
147
111
110
1:4
119120
134
133
132
133
132
13.1
125
.
124
12:3
122
69
68
a6665.
64
63
62
61
60
64
63
62
61
60
116 109 118
117 118 :119
131
139
1.39
129
59
58
57
56
55
115
144 108
146
115
117
129
128
..
127
128
121
126
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
113
112
107
114
115-416 126
125
127
126119
54
53
52
50
186
GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY
Project Mini-Score Training Norms forMinnesota Area Vocational-Technical Schools
SECRETARIAL TRAINING(Continued)
Per.
centile 6 V N S P UPer-
K cenIde
49 106 114 IIs 4948 113 124 125 4S
7 III 4746 111.113 46
45 103 112 123 121 45
44 110 117 41
43 110 342 101 122 42
41 109 111 123 116 41
40 1 0*(.1 09 121 in39 39;P: 111\ 1113 115 3S
37 110 107 120 122 :37
36 3635 109 105-106 121 114 35
31 107 102 119 120 34
33 113 33q IOS 1I8 12
a 101 164 112 11
.. . .
0 106 117 119 311
29 107 III 292.`i 116 110 28
27 100 2726 105 1116 102-103 115 118 109 2625 lOs 25
24 114 116.117 24
23 101 99 105 101 113 107 23
22 112 115 22
21 103 III 106 21
20 95 104 9S-100 110 20
19 102 114 105 19
18 103 oi. 109 18
17 101 97 .. 108 104 17
16 102 95 -963 11:3 1(13 16
15 100 107 102 15
14 96 101 106 112 .. 14
13 99 100 94 .. 101 13
12 0 95 99 105 116-111 .. 12
II 98 92 -93 104 99-100 II
10 94 93 103 109 9S 10
9 97 97 91 .. 108 97 9
8 96 93 96 101-102 . 96 87 95 92 8S -90 100 107 95 7
6 94 91 95 85-87 99 105-106 93-94 65 93 .. 94 84 98 .. 90-92 5
4 92 90 92-93 82-83 93-97 101-104 88-89 4
3 90-91 88-89 90-91 81 93-94 100 84-87 3
2 89 86-87 85 -S9 78-80 90-92 97-99 74-83 2I 77-88 76-85 98-84 65-77 80-89 75-99 29-73 1
N =739 N -730 N =739 N =739 N =739 N =739 N =739M =112.3 M =10723 N1=114.15 M --. 112.13 M=125.23 M=126.49 M= 117.94SD= 11.78 SD= 11.09 SD= 13.02 SD= 15.38 SD=16.67 SD-14.48 SD= 17.94
187
EXPECTANCY TABLES FOR FRESHMEN
ENTERING MINNESOTA COLLEGES
The expectancy tables on the following pages aresimilar to tables published in earlier editions. For cashgroup there are two tables for predicting first yearcollege marks, one based on high school percentileranks (MR) and one based on the Minnesota Scho-lastic Aptitude Test (MSAT).
The user is referred to Dr. Perry's chapter on testinterpretation for a further discussion of the use ofthese tables.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND HOME ECONOMICS
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College In Fall of 1968.
FEMALES
Per-centile
S(i -990)-70411-5920-30
1-19
Per-cent
of class
533017
HSRN =193
Per-cent
of class
MSATN=180
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Highor
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
02 4079 1747 6
--
362420146
92 4375 1880 2960 864
MALES
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN=265
Per-cent
of class
MSATN=234
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
373823
2
89 3170 846 7*
25232523
4
81 2975 2361 762 2s
The number of students in this sell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
189
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =1071
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
00-90 35 02 17 34 90 4SO-89 24 80 IS. 10 7060-79 20 67 10 25 71 1410-59 10 56 17 65 820-39 2 7 9 5 54
1-19 55
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 1781
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =1812
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
90-09 23 SS 45 27 82 -3980-89 22 74 20 18 73 2060-79 :3 62 10 31 1340-59 17 50 7 20 55 820-39 4 57 11 5 5 8
1-19
*The number of students in this cell is not largo enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell,
190
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
EDUCATION
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Yoar Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males and Females Combined
HSRN 7/)
100 of a
MSATN - 71
Chances in 100 of aChances inPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class
or Higher B or Higher IC or Higher B or Higher
SO-99 51 liti 13 25 8:i 22:1:1 1;1 :11 I 55
111-.59 it/ 2.1 17 11
20-30 171 50
1-19
*The nom HT of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a relialde percentage.--No students in this cell.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grado Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
H SRN = 23
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =23
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 65 113 48 100 7380-89 26 3560-79 9 1340-59 420-39
1-19
Males
HSRN =601
MSATN =600
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90 -99 49 89 41 33 SO 4280-89 27 71 17 22 83 3160-79 19 66 9 23 71 1840-59 4 60 12 15 70 820-39 5 59 18
1-19 1 *
*Tim number of students M this cell is not largo enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students M this cell.
192
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
GENERAL COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN 313
Chances in 100 of a
MSATN =318
Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
till -! 9 1
60-79 16 86 35 100 2140-59 30 80 16 21 87 2220-39 32 69 11 30 83 19
1-19 21 ti:l (i 57 9
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRX =490
Per-cent
of class
MSATY =492
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
1
8244027
* *90 1878 2372 1648 11
I5
223636
Validity coefficient lessthan .20
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
193
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
DENTAL HYGIENE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grode Point Average Based on ' vsliman
Entering College in Fall of 1968.
Femolis
Per-
H SRN 32
M SATN --:i2
Chances in 100 of aPer-freshman obtaining
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an overage grade of:centile of class of clas
C or Higher B or Higher IC or Higher B or Highei
SO-9960-79
7519
67 17 63 75:i I .16
20
0-59 fi
20-391-19
The number of students in this ern is not large ermugh to produce a reliabh percentage.Nu students in th'a cell.
194
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
DULUTH
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =607
Per-cent
of class
M SATN =593
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Highe. B or Higher
80-0960-7940-5920-39
1-19
513011
71
83 2450 23018
27262314
9
... 3766 550 547 1
16
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN=718
Per-cent
of class
M SATN =698
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
81 2856 1(13030 1
13
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher80-9960-7940-5920-30
1-19
252925156
1726232113
77 3054 943 738 224 2'
*Tile number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable perrentagr.No students in this cell.
195
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
MORRIS
Norms and Expectancy Tables fo, First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1960.
Females
HSRN =170
MSATN = 169
I Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- I freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent i an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class
C or Eigher B or Higher C or Eigher B or Eigher
90-99 .12 IOU 60 23 97 59SO-S9 S2 13 15 SS .1060-79 2.1 tits 7 31 S5 2710-.59 51/ 21) 22 76 1120-39 1 S 50
1-19 1 2
Males
HSRN =235
MSATN=231
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-90 2.1 93 51 16 S6 5080-89 25 73 27 20 SO 3760-79 37 56 5 II 65 1340-59 13 55 -- 19 60 220-39 1 $ 10 56 13
1-19 2 *
*The number o; students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
196
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
CROOKSTON
Norms and Expectancy Tobias for First Year Grado Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 176
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 149
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
80-99 9 87 40 9 77 3860-79 17 87 40 14 86 3840-59 28 80 16 16 71 2920-39 28 61 14 22 82 15
1-19 18 17 39 66 12
The number of students in this cell is nut large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No stl. lents in this cell.
197
AUGSBURG COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN =21I
MSATN=211
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 52 96 58 16 !I8 5780-89 25 91i 17 23 94 2760-70 17 75 :3 19 78 70-59 5 82 I() 86 520-39 I -- 1 *
1-1
Males
Per-
HSRN = 18.1
Per-
MSATN = 18.1
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher l3 or Higher
90-99 26 98 54 2:3 95 5780-89 Is 79 32 16 76 3160-70 :32 73 7 :34 81 640-59 18 55 3 20 57 1420-39 4 0
1-19 1* 2
onto ier of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.Nu stude its in this cell.
198
BETHEL COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average' Based on FreshmenEntering College in Foil of 1968,
Females
HSRN =138
MSATN -= 139
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of :centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 30 93 57 22 100 6089-89 27 89 22 14 95 5760-79 33 711 11 3I 86 120-59 9 58 19 65 1920-39 1 10 71 11
1-19 .5 *
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 101
Per-cent
of class
M SATN =101
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of;
C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 27 89 1 18 Inn 5080-89 22 100 18 12 75 1760-79 62 12 211 73 1240-59 16 31 26 54 820-39 11 36 16 50 12
1-19 1 *
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell,
199
. CARLETON COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN =23
MSATN =24
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per-- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 96 100 32 95 100 3580-89 4 5 *60 -79 --40 -5920 -39
1 -1)
Males
HSRN =72
MSATN = 72
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of :centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 78 91 46 81 91 4880-89 6 * 10 *60-79 17 83 25 6 *40-59 4 *20-39
1 -19
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
200
CONCORDIA COLLEGE MOORHEAD
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN =226
MSATN =221
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 40 09 69 25 98 5980-89 23 88 28 16 86 4960-79 27 79 8 28 90 3740-59 8 47 5 19 81 1920-39 2 9 58 10
1-19 3 *
Males
HSRN =196
MSATN =194
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-90 10 95 63 18 04 5680-89 24 89 32 18 89 3760-79 30 75 19 18 68 2440-59 19 54 3 25 77 1020-39 8 47 11 59 15
1-19 8 50 6
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students it. this cell.
201
CONCORDIA COLLEGE ST. PAUL
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968,
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN= 120
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =120
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade ot:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
462522
52
96 4777 1059 4
** *
27212521
6
97 5296 3673 13GO 4*
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =95
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =97
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
-19
26312212
9
96 5686 748 546
*
2522152118
96 4671 2493 76018
The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
202
DR. MARTIN LUTHER COLLEGE
Norm! and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =54
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =58
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1 -19
39201720
4
100 7691 .9,*
55*
38311710
3
100 5089 3390 10**
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
203
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =235
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =240
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
90-99SO -89W1-79-40-5920-39
1 -1<)
432528
3
98 - 5186 2274 6
* *
382026
9(3
1
95 5382 2888 1783 980
*
Moles
HSRN =196
MSATN =223
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 29 96 52 32 89 4780-89 27 91 23 16 91 . 2360 -70 31 70 13 23 83 1040-59 12 65 17 80 1520-39 1 * 9 71 10
1-19 1 2 *
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
204
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males
HSRN=110
MSATN =110
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 30 95 57 2G 93 4180-89 25 89 7 16 94 3360-79 27 60 7 28 74 1940-59 12 69 21 70 920-39 7 *
1-19 1 *
Females
HSRN =111
MSATN =111
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 40 98 57 34 100 5880-89 23 88 35 15 88 3560-79 31 82 18 29 88 3140-59 6 * 14 73 720-39 6 *
1-19 2 *
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
205
MACALESTER COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 142
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =-- 152
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
90-90 70 95 46 71 93 4380-89 20 90 17 20 87 2660-79 9 77 15 9 100 1440-5920-39
1-19
Males
HSRN =127
MSATN =139
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 50 94 60 50 88 5280-89 28 78 31 27 76 2760-79 18 52 4 16 68 2740-59 4 * 6 * *20-39 1 *
1 -19
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
206
COLLEGE OF ST. BENEDICT
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN .-- 274
MSATN =268
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 30 00 65 25 100 6580-89 26 100 36 19 94 4460-79 24 05 23 28 96 2740-59 14 87 3 18 98 1020-39 4 83 8 9 83 12
1-19 3 * 1 *
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
COLLEGE OF ST, CATHERINE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN =217
MSATN =218
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 47 98 54 48 95 4580-89 20 86 14 19 76 2260-79 24 69 10 18 82 2240-59 5 64 11 71 420-39 3 * 3 *
1 -19 1 1 *
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage,No students in this cell.
207
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males
HSRN =286
MSATN =245
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of : cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
00-99 30 05 52 28 85 3580-89 23 1)1 14 2; 88 2060-19 27 73 6 20 81 1540-59 10 47 2 16 65 1220-39 3 70 5 76 8
1-19 1 * *
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
ST. MARY'S COLLEGE WINONA
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males
HSRN = 143
MSATN =127
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 17 100 60 18 87 5280-89 13 94 39 15 95 2660-79 31 96 24 20 88 2740-59 23 67 12 19 83 1720-39 11 56 13 76 24
1-19 4 * 14 78 6
*The number of atudenta in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
208
ST. OLAF COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN = 151
MSATN = 151
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
00-09 68 99 54 64 99 518(1 -89 25 92 19 21 97 3660-79 7 70 30 13 79 2140-59 1 2 *20-39 1 *
1-19
Males
HSRN=101
MSAT` =191
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
00-99 47 97 54 41 80 4280-89 25 90 25 25 92 3160-79 21 58 10 22 74 2940-59 4 * 10 65 3020-39 3 * * 1 *
1 -19 -- 1 *
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
209
ST. PAUL BIBLE COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =84
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =85
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainin,,an average grade or:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920 -39
1 -19
26262320
5
86 185942 --29
«
II21212621
* *
72 11505428
The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
COLLEGE OF ST. SCHOLASTICA
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
HSRN =167
MSATN =181
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of a-Per- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of:centile of class of class
C or Nigher B or Higher C or Higher B or Higher
90-99 31 100 75 14 92 6880-89 25 98 48 21 97 4560-79 29 78 14 20 92 5040-59 5 * * 28 84 2620-39 7 58 11 79 16
1-19 2 * 7 83 17
*The number of students in this cell is no large enough to produce a reliable pereer'age.No students in this cell.
210
COLLEGE OF ST. THOMAS
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968,
Males
HSRN =322
MSATN = 318
Chances in 100 of a Chances in 100 of aPer- freshman obtaining Per- freshman obtaining
Per- cent an average grade of: cent an average grade of :ccntile of class of class
C or Higher B or Higher C or Higher B r Higher
00-90 15 98 62 21 82 5080-89 14 91 :33 18 80 2760-79 31 66 21 28 65 1940-59 23 49 4 24 53 320-39 12 44 3 8 42
1 -19 5 38 2 *
sTho number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
211
BEMIDJI STATE COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tablet for First Year Gra6. Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =433
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 372
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
422722
82
91 3469 1444 236 6
*
1924231816
90 3277 2371 1655 934 3
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =463
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =393
Chances in 100 of 1freshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
16263021
8
90 3875 1554 236 1
14 3
1020242917
90 4665 1460 958 432 2
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
212
MANKATO STATE COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Bcsed on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSR= 1099
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 1084
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
31282313
4
00 4472 1546 430 230 4
IS22252214
87 4570 2668 1848 434 4
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 942
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 934
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80 -0960-7940-5920-39
1-19
1423282312
89 4672 2048 641 522 1
1218252420
72 3772 2460 1148 834 3
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
213
MOORHEAD STATE COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1960.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 448
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 461
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher80-9960-7940-5920-391-19
40342052
91 4173 1154 638
*
22262420
9
89 5185 2565 1671 950 2
Male,
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =417
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 421
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
222732163
90 4871 1856 634 350 17
1523252511
92 4972 2968 1546 546 4
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.N0 students in this cell.
214
ST. CLOUD STATE COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =1067
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =1029
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
42341851
90 4373 1657 530 425 8
28242516
6
91 4780 2570 1659 655 G
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =989
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =940
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
22292817
4
87 4171 1248 334.. 315 5
1523272113
82 3565 1458 1250 741 4 .
The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
216
WINONA STATE COLLEGE
Norms and Expectoncy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =416
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =364
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80 -0960-7040-5920-39
1-19
32332212
1
95 5078 2049 548 2
* *
2018252116
94 6085 3370 17(15 1351 4
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =320
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =275
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
80-0960-7940-5920-39
1-19
12273223
7
87 3880 1263 447 424 5
910252822
02 2388 1661 1253 550
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
216
ANOKA-RAMSEY STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEnterin, illego in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 236
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =218
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of;
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
253422154
92 5684 2260 1351 11
* *
919232920
S4 6383 :3176 2471 1658 12
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =379
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =363
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
924282514
76 3362 1160 963 1046 13
816212629
79 2563 1855 1058 1253 5
*The number of students in this cell is not largo enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this coll.
211
AUSTIN STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College In Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-,cent
of class
HSRN =191
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =167
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
:372619126
96 4676 1233 326 446
2221162319
94 3983 3173 1950 834 6
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =258
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =233
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
1519272415
92 4960 651 343 528 8
1318182427
90 4860 1055 751 433 5
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
218
BRAINERD STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1969.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =79
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =79
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7040 -5920-39
1-19
333715133
85 6283 174230
1816162029
100 7177 4677 3163 643 4
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 112
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 116
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-391-19
1424282311
75 31(13 223919
1614172628
72 2862 1250 I023 319
The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a relinble percentage.No students in this cell.
219
FERGUS FALLS STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =88
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =77
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
32321616
5
89 6189 185036
4.
2219172616
94 4780 4085 3155 1033
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =135
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =139
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
814302919
91 3674 214931 520 4
1217192131
88 4467 841 445 728 2
*The num mr of stilt ents in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
220
HIBBING STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fcll of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN ,---- 170
Per-cent
of class
MSAT'N =167
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
:35302311
2
100 5474 1267 367 0
*
282616191/
04 5386 1673 872 1253 10
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 165
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =164
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920 -39
1-19
1722252214
89 2D68 1458 736 630 4
1512232823
83 2578 1070 1344 939 8
*The num ,er of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
221
ITASCA STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 66
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 65
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
CNances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-391-19
29302111
3
90 68100 2164 7*
2017252018
100 6982 3681 1992 833 8
Males
Per-centile
.
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =140
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 127
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
1026232516
93 4364 1753 33413
1217182231
93 2059 1848 946 428 3
The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No studente in this cell.
222
LAKEWOOD STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =195
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =182
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
149
25:22414
5
84 3977 1860 1361 14
*
1020282021
79 4289 2278 1658 1151 10
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =363
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =325
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-391-19
622292814
83 3567 1250 1136 435 6
513262432
76 1257 1955 1149 838 6
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
223
MESABI STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =146
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =156
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-790-5920-391-19
25342714
92 4676 1838 23 .) r
2419232113
89 458(3 2444 1159 933 5
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =200
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =218
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1 -19
1526252212
87 4356 43223 2
8
2216261917
65 2251 9:34 4328
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to prod tee a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
224
METROPOLITAN STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based an FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =77
Per-cent
of class
M SATN =72
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
80-99(10 -7940-5920-39
1-19
I6193521
9
92 4280 1770 ir75 38
*
022222822
* *75 3875 3875 1575 12
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =141
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =135
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
614283319
* *
65 3572 3353 1752 15
7151923
.36
Validity coefficient lessthan .20
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
225
NORMANDALE STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering CcIlege in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 256
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 240
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B. or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
1624301911
95 ,1
77 2363 13:38 1026
1.1
19252220
82 3864 2763 1559 1840 6
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 468
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 435
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
714263220
69 2367 1342 632 833 5
913242629
67 1854 1437 442 531 7
*The number of students in this cell is.not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
226
NORTH HENNEPIN STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
BSAN = 206
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =190
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Hig:Ier B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
23312416
7
89 47(57 1447 441 321 7
1115173126
80 4583 2459 1956 1040 2
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =349
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =303
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
719322913
52 2657 933 434 419
713193130
Validity coefficient lessthan .20
*The number of students in this eell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
227
NORTHLAND STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Pont Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =135
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =129
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-0960-7040-5920-39
1-19
2123201912
100 5471 357 62637 6
1415192231
100 7279 1150 464 7.18
RAINY RIVER STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 105
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =90
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7040-5020-39
1-19
30271818
8
94 6186 2184 1642 5
*
919!7i1
2621
* *
88 3578 2665 2258
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this es/I.
228
ROCHESTER STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRX =408
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =319
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9060 -7940-5920-39
1-19
311
302115
4
77 3460 1148 649 2033
2023241617
7.1 3171 2458 1153 642 7
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 308
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =342
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920.30
1-19
824242717
91 3972 2456 1249 736 6
1411222626
78 3169 1857 1353 7.18 9
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
229
VERMILLION STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 118
Per-cent
of class
MSATN r= 104
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1 -19
1922241916
100 5558 12542221
171.1
222224
84 1680 1348 134312 8
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
230
WILLMAR STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grcde Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =78
Per-cent
of class
M SATN = 80
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade ,,f:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
24262722
1
100 5390 3086 1476 18
1416262810
100 7392 4095 2991 1470 15
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =168
Per-cent
of class
M SATN =195
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
718283017
92 5080 1775 456 248 3
011192832
72 3373 971 1869 758 6
*The number of students in this cell is.not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
231
WORTHINGTON STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Fetviales
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =112
Per-cent
of class
MSATN --- 76
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
Cor Higher B or Higher
SO-9960-7940 -5020-39
1-19
212924196
02 020.1 1848 1528 10*
920202916
*73 33GO 2068 1842
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =230
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =151
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9900-7940-5920-39
1-19
1415233018
85 5874 056 1238 312
1011203028
87 5371 3553 1052 437 5
*The, num ier of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No study to in this cell.
232
BETHANY LUTHERAN
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of W68.
Males and Females Combined
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRX =71
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =77
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1-19
:14272114
4
100 7589 26fill 740
--
2522211:1
13
100 7970 3575 12(i7 730
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
CORBETT COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 21
Per-cent
of class
MSATN =21
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5920-39
1 -19
2414143810
* **** *
2.110141043
* ** ** ***
*The number of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
233
CROSIER SEMINARY
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average cased on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =15
Per-cent
of class
M SATN =10
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaini.7,gan average grade ot:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9900 -71)0-5920-39
1 -19
2227182013
100 70100 75
***
482613
49
100 50100 42
***
*The num wr of students in this cell is not large enough to prod tee a reliable percentage.--No stud, Its in this evil.
234
GOLDEN VALLEY LUTHERAN COLLEGE
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN = 92
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 77
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher8(1 -99(H) -79.10-5920-39
1-19
17252229
7
94 5087 3(170 1578. 7
*
1010162236
92 67*
83 4277 1264 7
Males
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =64
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 54
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtaining
an average grade of :
C or Higher B or Higher80-996f1 -7940-5(120-39
1- 1 9
519252230
* *92 :1:369 193621
.1
1917)348
*
69 20**
38 8
*The num ter of students in this cell is not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.No students in this cell.
235
ST. MARY'S MINNEAPOLIS
Norms and Expectancy Tables for First Year Grade Point Average Based on FreshmenEntering College in Fall of 1968.
Females
Per-centile
Per-cent
of class
HSRN =164
Per-cent
of class
MSATN = 131
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
Chances in 100 of afreshman obtainingan average grade of:
C or Higher B or Higher
80-9960-7940-5020-39
1-19
18263019
8
86 4174 1959 452 315
1015312123
77 3975 1573 2052 437 3
*The number of Btu( rnts in this cell is.not large enough to produce a reliable percentage.Nilo students in this cull.
236
FREQUENCY OF STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK (SVIB)SCORES AMONG MINNESOTA HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS*
Edwin Gary Joselyn
Students and their counselors interpreting SVIB profiles oftenwonder how a profile compares with that of a "typical" senior. Thereseems to be a need for some kind of reference or norm to help deter-mine whether a student's interests are quite different from those of hispeers, and various reports of normative data have appeared in theSVIB literature from time to time.**
Tables 1 and 2 present percentage. distributions of letter grades forMinnesota seniors who took SVIB through the Minnesota High SchoolState-Wide Testing Program in 1966-67. Of the 310 schools which usedSVIB with their seniors through the Program that year, 250 admin-istered the instrument to all senior boys and 245 to all senior girls, atotal of 8,168 boys and 7,263 girls. Only seniors from schools whichtested all the boys or all the girls are included in the distributions inTables 1 and 2. This was done to obtain a better cross-section ofMinnesota seniors since schools which use SVIB with less than theentire class tend to test only brighter, "college-bound," seniors.
There may be some bias in these data, however, since the schoolswhose seniors are included represent a higher proportion of smaller,out-State communities. Nevertheless, because of the large N's (aboutone-quarter of the entire Minnesota class of 1967) and because thedata include only schools where all seniors were tested, these tablesare believed to be a good representation of Minnesota seniors.
These tables should help students and their counselors spot waysin which their interests are alike or different from other Minnesotaseniors. For example, "A" scores on the Social Worker or Ministerscales are much rarer among boys than "A" scores on the Farmer orPrinter scales, and are probably more important.
High school senior boys tend to get high scores in Group IV, theTechnical-Outdoor group, while many girls score high on the Secre-tary, Office Worker, and Housewife scales. Both boys and girls gettheir lowest scores on the Social Services areas. (Other studies haveshown that men and women receive considerably higher scores in theSocial Services area by age 25.) Notice that there are few scales onwhich many girls get very high scores. "A's" other than in the Sec-retarial and Housewife scales are fairly rare for girls.
Reprinted from Student Counseling Bureau Newsletter, University of Minne-sota, Vol. 20, No. 1, February, 1968.
**See Layton, W. L. Counseling Use of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank,Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1958, for distributions of SVIBscores for Minnesota seniors of 1955. Some of these tables are reproduced inthe State-Wide Manual, Counseling and the Use of Tests, Revised.
237
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON STRONG VOCATIONALINTEREST BLANK GIVEN TO 8168 MALE MINNESOTA
HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, FALL, 1966GRADE SCORES
Occupational Scales C C B- B B+ AI. 1)entist 11 10 IS IS II)
Osteopath .36 23 20 13 7 3Veterinarian ... 11 16 It) 20- 24Physician.. .37 20 16 12 7 7Psychiatrist. S6 6 .1 2 I
Psychologist. SO 11 5 3 1 1
Biologist 62 14 II 15 3 311. .Architect 26 15 IS
_lo 13 141:itliiiinatician .
P chysiist(57G I
151 5
10 611 S
23
I
2Chemist -I-1 f S 13 I I 7 7Engineer. 29 11 15 115 12 14
III. Produvlion Momigiq 11 14 21 22 17 11Army Ofliver . 11 10 15 S 6 3Air Force (1fliver 30 20 19 15 II) 7
IV. Carpenter . 19 9 11 1 13 3SForest Service Man . 40 14 17 -1 7 SFarmer . 6 5 In I 16 52N 1 ath-Science Teacher 21 20 20 7 SPrinter 5 0 10 :1 II:oi 5 3Polieeman 33 20 20 5
_, 4 ...
V. Personnel Director.. SO 9 0 :1 2 I
Public Administrator 63 13 12 0 3 3Rehabilitat ion Counselor ...... . . 74 II 7 4 2 2V Al ('A Secretary .55 15 10 S 6 (i/social W orker 7!1 8 5 4 2 3Social Science Teacher :15 18 17 13 S SSchool Superintendent 90 5 2 2 1 0
Iiiiister3
3 2 I I I
\'I. LibrarianArtist
(5)' )
2'1518
7 518 16
0I1
0-...,
13Itisiv Performer 8 12 23 25 10 16
Music 'reacher 00 17 12 5 :1 :1
VII. C.P.A. Owner 76 11 7 1 I 1
VIII. Senior C.P.A. -12 IS 16 12 7 5Accountant 50 20 15 (5 5 3Office Worker. 24 21 21 16 8 10Purchasing Agent . S 9 12 18 21 33Banker 19 13 19 22 14 13Pharmacist 12 13 23 21 19 12Mortician ') 12 21 21 22 16
IX. Sales Manager 26 2:1 22 15 8 15
Real Estate Salesman 3 8 16 22 26 27Life Insurance Salesman ..24 22 22 1(5 9 6
X. Advertising Man 215 21 21 1(5 10 7Lawyer 31 24 18 15 8 5Author-Journalist 21 22 21 17 I 1 9
XI. President-Manufacturing 40 22 19 10 7
STANDARD SCORESNon-Occupational Scales 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 60-69 60-69 70-79
Specialization Level... II 38 38 II 2 0 0Occupational Level... 0 1) 17 -17 30 60 0Masculinity-Feminity. . 0 22 G 23 47 2i 1
Academic Achievement. 28 28 21 14 7 2 0
238
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON STRONG VOCATIONALINTEREST BLANK GIVEN TO 7263 FEMALE
MINNESOTA HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, FALL, 1966
Occupational ScalesGRADE SCORES
C C+ 13- 13 B+ A
1. Alusie '1'enclier (l0 10 11 3Music Performer 3(1 20 IS 13 S
II. Artist 35 21 22 12 .7 4Author 0 20 18 S 2Librarian 113. 16 II 5 2 2
. English Teacher 85 5 4 :3 1 2
111.- Social Science Teacher 85 7 3 2 1 1
YWCA Seerctary. .06 2 1 0 (1 0Social Worker. 58 1S 13 0 3 2Psychologist.. 92 4 2 1 I 0Lawyer 8(1 10 5 3 I 1
Iv. Life insurance salesman 88 7 .3 I 0 0V. Buyer 28 21 22 15 S li
13usilies Education Teacher 20 1.1 16 21 -13 15Stenogra idler-Secretary 2 1(1 22 27 38Office. Worker 1 3 4.1, 16 Di 44
VI. Elementary Teacher 11 15 23 20 10 1 4Housewife 2 4 7 18. 23 Itillo 11W Ee0110 MI VS- Teacher 45 .19 10 11 0 2Dietitian 31) 27 21 16 . 5 2
VII. Physical EducationTeacher (High School) 36. 25 22 12 4 0
PhySical EducationTeacher (College). 81 9- 5 3 1 (1
Occupational Therapist 49 19 12 I 1 0 :3Physical Therapist..
.Nurse30
.572314
1713
147
S 76 :3
VIII. Physician 75 12 7 3 2Dentist 5tl 24 9 5 2 1
Laboratory Technician 41 20 20 10 5 4
IX. Alath-Science Teacher. 57 17 13 8 3 3Engineer 70 12 5' 2 1 ' 1
STANDARD SCORENon-Occupational Scales 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 60-69 60-69 70-79
Afasenlinity-Feminity . 2 6 12 37 :32 10 1
Academic Achievement. 15 35 27 15 6 1 0
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORY (MVII)PROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING SUCCESS NORMS FORMINNESOTA AREA VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOLS*
Description of the Profiles
The MVII Raw Score isplotted along the left side of 05'each page. A bar for each ofthe nine area scales representsthe range of scores for stu- 8,1'; ALP
dents who have successf ullycompleted courses in thatarea. The bold part of the barrepresents the range of scoresfor the middle two-thirds ofthese students. The light por- ;lc
lion of the bar represents themiddle 90 per cent of thegroup. That is, 90 per cent of 5':; ilrthe students in the ProjectMini -Score research who successfully completed courses in a particulararea had MVII scores which fell between the top and bottom ends ofthe light bars, and two-thirds of the students had Aptitude scoreswhich fell between the top and bottom of the bold portion of the bars.
674';
The nine "Area Keys" of the MVII are as follows:
H-1: MechanicalIndicates interests in mechanical things, machine operationand design, or about home repairs of mechanical and simpleelectrical gadgets.
I-1-2: Health ServiceExpresses interests in medical and hospital services, activitiesand occupations, or in working in medical, biological orchemical laboratories.
H-3: Office WorkIndicates interests in general clerical work and office machineoperation, bookkeeping and accounting, and office manage-ment practices.
H-4: ElectronicsThis key expresses an interest in the maintenance, operation
°Please refer to Page 101 for a discussion of the Project MINI-SCORE Projectand a description of the norm groups.
240
and construction of electronic equipment, and the repair andconstruction of electrical systems and devices.
H-5: Food ServiceIndicates interests in the preparation of food and menuplanning.
H-6: CarpentryThis cluster deals primarily with interests relating to car-pentry, cabinet making and furniture construction.
H-7: Sales-OfficeTwo clusters of interests are indicated here. The larger dealswith a variety of verbal activities, while the other relates toaesthetic interests. High scores are made by retail sales clerks,new-car salesmen, printers, and persons engaged in officework.
H-8: Clean HandsIndicates an interest in those occupations which possess"clean hands" kinds of activities.
H-9: OutdoorsThis key reflects an interest in athletics and other outdooractivities.
241
A
\V
S
22
21
IT
111
15
1.1
11
III
MVII
Air Conditioning, Refrigeration and Appliance Repair
i.---- -4 i
1I
T1
1
I
II
4-
1
fl
\I(1 h. 111 Ith (Id!Sei. 11o11.
242
Sri. rotr)',di. i Mut
11.311,1,
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION AND APPLIANCE REPAIR
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
22 9921 0421) S719 8018 74
OffWk
Mee-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
22212019
18
17 64 99 17
16 52 96 1615 41 92 15
I4 31 85 99 OS 1.1
I3 29 74 08 II9 96 13
12 22 09 90 113 Il7 97 91 12
11 18 )S 98 51 191 96 79 1I1(1 Ili 98 98 16 114 89 00 61 10
9 11 06 97 3S 91 79 98 98 52 98 I 1 90 90 99 87 70 97 95 37 87 I) S4 92 I!) 84 62 02 89 24 7
6 7 SO 84 12 77 52 S7 80 17 6
5 5 77 77 8 G2 40 SO 71 9-I 4 69 69 4 46 30 68 60 3 4
3 4 54 .57 2 311 19 56 39 3
2 1 37 39 I 25 9 1 21 2I 2 20 2(1 11 3 2S 11) 1
0 6 5 1 10 2 0
N =56 N= 51; N-56 ti =.54 \ =55 5 =511 N=5fi s =56Its° m 3, H m =3.1n M= 1(1.'24 M =4.:14 M (1.05 M =211 M 3.K6 S,SOSD -4.42 SD-2.80 SI) 2.53 SD =3.48 SD =3,10 3.01 SD 2.114 SD 2.22 SD-2.50
243
II
NS:
I )
. 5
.1
MVII
Mechanical Drafting and Design
sik, IL II IiI (tivl v. \ I.,
Elcc- Sd ISS, IS. entry 41 I.
244
.4111
Iliulds (lour>
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT M1N1 -SCORE TRAINING NORMS
MECHANICAL DRAFTING AND DESIGN
Raw Health Off El ec- Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Sery entry Off. Hands doors Score
22212019
99968981
22212019
18 73 99 1817 65 99 99 1716 57 99 99 99 99 99 1615 48 99 99 98 09 99 00 1514 30 99 00 95 09 98 99 14
13 31 99 09 90 119 9.1 99 99 13
12 25 99 98 86 98 88 99 94 1211 20 98 97 81 07 80 99 83 11
10 15 97 96 75 95 70 09 69 109 12 96 94 67 91 57 07 99 55 9
9 94 92 55 87 48 1)4 98 41 87 7 S9 89 44 80 39 89 05 25 7
6 Si 86 :14 73 29 84 88 14 65 4 76 78 24 64 20 77 76 7 54 3 64 68 16 51 12 64 59 4 43 2 52 57 9 33 6 47 38 2 32 1 39 42 4 17 3 29 20 1 21 1 24 25 1 6 1 15 6 1 1
0 1 8 8 1 1 5 1 1 (1
N=251 N=251 N =251 N =251 N =251 N=251 N =251 N=251 N=25tM =14.66 M =3.32 M=3.23 M =7.69 4.4.59 M =8.06 M =3.52 NI =3.71 M = 8.56SL) =4.56 SD =2.88 SD=3.00 SD=3.50 SD=2.86 SD=3.22 SD=2.40 SD= 1.84 SD=2.36
245
2.;
211
111
)s
it I( i
,115
1 I
1,3
1.1
0
MVII
Electronics
-
.M.r. h. 1111th. () I. 11 I.. t?
211
p.tivrv. entr
1)11t
OIL II:Bids I low,
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
ELECTRONICS
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
22 9921 90
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
20 91) 119 2019 SO 99 19
IS 08 99 1817 58 1)1) 91) 94 17
16 49 99 911 71) 16
15 :38 91) 99 03 99 91) 15
14 29 99 119 .18 911 99 99 14
13 23 91) 911 34 99 99 98 13
12 17 99 US 21 98 99 1)3 12
II 13 98 98 11 97 98. 85 11
1(1 II 95 1)7 7 99 99 117 99 71 1))
1) 1) 91 95 5 93 99 96 99 53 1)
8 5 87 93 4 89 95 93 98 38 87 4 SO 00 3 84 89 110 94 26 76 3 73 80 2 71) 81 SS 811 15 65 2 64 81 1 74 72 81 80 S 54 2 54 72 I 92 01 6 65 4 4
3 I 41 50 I 44 48 52 .16 I 32 I 28 38 I 27 33 31 24 21 I 16 22 1 1:3 16 13 8 I
0 1 4 7 3 4 2 2 0
5 =202 N =202 =202 N =202 N =202 N =202 N=202 N =202 :4 =2o2M = 15.50 M =4.20 M =3.20 M= 13.73 M =3.96 M =3.5:3 M =3.40 M =3.45 M =8.59s 0= 4.12 S = 3.19 SD= 2.90 81)=2.69 SD = 2.96 Sll =2.4 I SD=2.51 S D = 1.92 SD= 2.17
247
22
21
211
17
it 16
.115
1.1
(1
5
4
3
2
1
0
MVII
Automotive
M cli. Be. Ith off. Eke- Food Cirp-Sc V. k. Iron, Serb'. CII ry
248
Sa es Cl out.Off. ha Ills doors
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
AUTOMOTIVE
Raw HealthScore Much Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221201918
9789756149
2221201918
17 40 99 99 1716 32 99 99 1615 25 99 96 99 99 1511 19 99 90 99 99 99 1413 15 99 84 99 97 95 1312 11 99 75 98 94 84 1211 8 99 99 64 97 89 68 1110 6 99 99 53 96 82 99 99 51 109 4 99 98 41 95 71 99 99 34 98 2 98 97 30 91 60 99 99 21 87 2 97 95 21 85 49 98 97 12 76 1 95 93 14 77 38 96 92 7 65 1 90 90 8 67 26 92 84 3 54 1. 82 83 5 54 15 86 71 1 43 1 70 74 3 38 8 77 53 1 32 1 53 57 1 23 3 62 31 1 21 32 35 1 9 1 39 12 1 1
0 10 12 2 1 12 3 1 0
N=.495 N=995 N=495 N=405 N=495 N=995 N=495 N=905 N=995M=17.12 M=2.23 M=2.20 M=9.67 M=4.10 M=7.18 M=1.89 M=3.05 M=9.75SD= 3.75 SD -2.02 SD=2.36 SD=3.25 SD=2.79 SD=2.97 8D=1.83 SD=1.81 SD=2.21
249
MVII
Carpentry
:22
'21
19
itI7
A
11e, Ith (711. 1.4,0(1
sc Wk.
250
(y
Sales C:Ica t ()W-on. 1 lands (1:,
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
CARPENTRY
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
Cuff Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
922221 98 z120 92 2019 81 19
18 G9 1817 60 99 17111 52 99 91) 99 99 16
15 44 99 99 119 94 99 15
11 36 99 99 99 85 118 1.1
13 211 99 97 99 71 04 13
12 22 99 98 1)5 98 54 . SG 12
11 IS 99 97 93 98 139 70 ii10 14 98 96 87 116 99 91) 49 10
9 10 98 94 80 04 20 98 32 9
S il 96 92 70 1)1) 11 08 99 20 S
7 6 94 S9 57 S(; 7 96 97 13. 76 4 88 85 42 81 4 114 90 S 05 2 81 70 25 75 2 90 77 4 5
4 1 74 72 14 6.1 2 S2 .59 2 4
3 1 65 GO 9 40 1 72 39 I 3
2 1 50 -16 5 32 I 55 21 2
1 I 31 2S 2 15 34 8 I
0 14 9 I 4 12 I ()
=181 N=lS Nll N=181 N=I81 N=18I N=I81 N=-181 N=181M= 4.9O M=2.60 NI =3.00 NI =0.75 NI =3.7! M = I1.3 I M=2.20 NI NI =9.73SD= 4.2t1 Sp =25 D=1O D=2.81 SD =1;10 81).= 2.69 SD=2.I0 SO= I.78 SI)=2.28
251
22
19
18
17
AIs
12
11
11 10
9
8
(1
.3
2
1
0
MVII
Practical Nursing
Mcc11 11(7161 Off. (0 Carp. Saks Clran Out-Sm., Wk. troll. VII IT Off, I doors
252
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI -SCORE TRAINING NORMS
PRACTICAL NURSING
Raw HealthScore M ech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
222120
222120
19 96 9)) 1018 84 90 1817 60 9)) 98 1719 45 99 .95 1615 29 99 91 99 1514 10 08 80 91) 91) 14
13 99 13 97 78 99 05 1312 99 1) 95 66 99 01 99 1211 99 (1 92 54 90 84 90 1110 09 4 89 44 99 74 99 99 109 90 2 83 35 06 63 09 90 98 19) 2 75 25 00 49 97 07 87 99 1 65 99 16 81 34 92 92 76 98 1 54 91) 10 98 23 80 84 (1
5 97 I 2 97 6 50 15 63 71 595 31 93 31 8 13 55 4
3 91 20 83 2 16 3 25 34 3
2 83 12 65 1 7 1 9 15 21 64 6 40 1 2 1 2 4 1
(1 26 1 12 1 1 1 1 0
N=5119 N=509 N=509 N=509 N=500 N=500 N =509 N =509 N =50051 = I h .75 M=5.91 M =1.01 M=10.39 M =5.11 M =8.13 NI 4 ,4 0 M =3.97
SD = 1.52 SD--.-`2.83 SD=3.31 SD = 1.44 SD=3.38 SD=2.I I 0=2.78 SD=1.80 SD= 1.91
253
A
11
S
C
23
21
20
19
Th
17
1,1
13
12
11
10
9
S
5
3
2
0
MVII
Printing and Graphic Arts
Nlerli, I Iv:11th Off. El T FIX,C1 C qi- CIC:111 01.1t-SITV. trt ii. Sr et try Off. I 1 :mils doors
254
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
PRINTING AND GRAPHIC ARTS
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery22
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221 98 21
20 96 2019 94 191 99 19
18 91 19) 117 99 IS17 80 99 97 09 1716 82 99 97 99 98 1015 80 98 97 97 07 91) 15
14 76 97 96 1)6 1)6 97 14
13 70 97 96 92 96 07 99 110 13
12 02 97 95 87 91 96 99 1)7 12
11 55 97 91 82 92 90 1)7 91 11
19 41) 96 86 76 91 S1 95 99 00 10
9 10 92 81 71 87 72 93 97 8.1
S 30 84 76 62 82 6.1 86 94 f4 87 23 76 7.1 51 74 5.1 76 86 63 7li 17 71 09 1 65 II 70 75 .19 6
13 65 511 410 57 30 111 60 32 54 10 56 49 19 16 24 -44 43 18
(1 II 37 12 :12 12 27 25 II 3
2 2 23 25 7 18 5 16 2I 1 11 1i 2 9 I II0 2 5
N =8051=10.6951)-4.91
N :--- 90M =4.50
S1)=3.41
N soM = 5.09
SD= 1.17
N =81;51 =7.24
S1)=3.93
N =SOM =5.15
51)=3.419
N =911M =6,76
514-3.23
N = 8051=4.70
;-10 =2.s6
N ,-.F.11
M=4.56s1)=2.09
N so51=6.39
81)=2.55
255
ANV
S
0K
22
21
20
10
38
17
10
35
11
1:3
12
11
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
MVII
Architectural Drafting
M Lt. Health Off. Elve. nd Carp. S: los lit all Old-Serv. W k. tron. Son'. in ry II. I lands doors
256
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
ARCHITECTURAL DRAFTING
Raw Health Off Elec- Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Serv. entry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
99OS
2221
20 96 2010 112 19
18 87 18
17 79 17
10 60 16
15 54 97 15
14 43 90 99 91) 92 98 14
13 35 95 97 117 88 04 13
12 31 92 92 06 77 92 1211 27 99 92 87 90 67 86 11
1(1 25 07 01 80 90 57 69 100 21 05 01) 72 92 46 911 08 51 0
8 13 91 88 64 86 31) 94 95 38 87 8 85 85 52 82 31 88 93 26 .76 S 80 81 36 73 23 83 87 16 65 7 74 74 22 58 12 75 75 9 5
4 6 08 61 12 50 5 59 64 6 4
3 4 62 47 8 41 1 40 50 3 3
2 2 45 34 3 25 24 26 1 2
1 1 21 19 10 13 7 1
0 5 5 2 5 1 0
N=53 N=53 N=63 N.53 N=53 N.53 N=53 N=53 N=53M=13.49 M =3.2S M =3.98 M =7.26 M=4.45 M =9.15 M =3.70 M =3.53 M=8.60SD= 4.64 S1)=2.84 S.9=3.55 SD= SI)=3.09 SD =3.2.5 SD=2.30 SD =2.07 81)=2.59
257
2(1
MVII
Chefs and Cooks
9
S
I.
oilSo: v. 11 k,
Elev. (:arp- Sales :lean hd-ti on. St.rv, entry 014 !lands doors
258
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
CHEFS AND COOKS
Raw Health Off Elec- Food Carp- sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Sery entry Off. Hands doors Score
22 \ 2221 08 2120 07 96 21)
19 97 99 84 1918 05 98 75 1817 93 08 ((2 1716 93 98 99 09 43 I615 92 98 08 97 1I3 I S
(4 90 96 98 114 28 911 14
13 87 04 96 9:1 22 DS 08 13
12 82 91 93 93 16 97 !)(1 12
1 1 79 88 89 00 1 3 0:1 04 I I
I0 75 84 84 87 9 84 03 95 98 109 70 75 76 84 6 74 02 97 92 9S ((4 70 70 8(1 5 65 88 95 83 8
56 69 66 75 3 52 79 0(1 7:s 76 52 ((3 111 68 2 38 64 78 60 (1
5 46 55 54 50 2 26 47 60 .16 54 35 45 48 46 2 1(1 :14 13 :10 .1
3 27 31 40 32 . 2 7 28 29 14 32 21 17 27 16 1 2 22 16 -1 2'1 14 10 14 4 2 12 7 I 1
0 5 4 5 1 1 2 2 0
N =61M=6.82
S1)=5.34
N =fitN1 =5,66
S1)=4.211
N =61m=5.33
S1)=4.12
5=51M =5,33
SI) =3.75
N =51M=15.46tin=1.611
5=51M =6.417
SI)=2.78
N=61M =5.011
SI) = US
N =61M =4.35
SI)=2.111
N =61M
S1)=2.23
259
A
\V
II
2:3
22
21
20
10
Is
17
16
15
/
13
12
11
J0
9
S
(i
1
0
MVII
Welding
I. liraitli oil. ElirjS. N1 k, troth
Pond Carp- Sa es (Is ass 0 tt-Sere, entry 0 F. I ISIS doors
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
WELDING
Raw HealthScare Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-trop,
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
222120
222120
989080
19 70 09 1918 60 99 1817 50 99 99 1716 43 99 99 1615 35 99 97 99 99 1514 28 99 90 04 98 97 09 1413 23 99 09 91 97 05 95 1312 19 99 99 85 07 91 87 1211 1(1 99 98 78 96 85 73 11
10 13 99 97 71 05 77 90 56 1(1
9 10 98 96 61 94 68 99 1 08 8 95 05 48 91 57 09 98 28 S
7 6 91 93 37 85 45 08 95 18 76 5 87 89 28 76 33 94 89 10 fi
5 3 80 84 19 65 22 88 78 5 5
4 1 72 78 10 53 13 79 64 2 4
3 1 60 60 5 38 6 (i6 48 1 3
2 1 46 55 2 23 2 51 29 1 21 1 29 33 1 0 1 32 12 1
0 1 10 11 1 1 1 9 3 0
N=254 N =254 N=254 N =254 N=254 N=254 N =254 N=254 N =254M=15.89 M=2.85 M=2.55 M = 8.2 M=4.35 M=7.50 M=2,34 51 =3.35 M=9.35SD = 4.60 SD= 2.64 81)=2.73 SD=3.35 80 =3.07 SD= 3.08 SD = 1.07 SI)=2.01 81)=2.41
261
ltA
S
21.
20
19
18
17
I Ii
15
1
113
12
11
11.1
I)
S
5
3
1
0
MVII
Farm Equipment Mechanics
L
Mt: 41. I Iv ilth OIL 1'4 mil %up. Sa (I an (1 :Sete. 111. hit, Si v. entry f I I. iii d101,
262
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICS
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp-entry
Sales Clean Out- RawOff. Hands doors Score
2221201918
2221
2019
18
9991
796753
17 40 99 91) 1716 30 99 118 1615 23 09 96 1514 19 99 90 99 99 1.1
13 14 99 81 99 97 1)5 1312 III 09 7(1 98 114 85 12
11 8 98 67 97 89 99 67 11
10 7 97 53 95 76 99 48 10
9 6 97 40 92 62 99 31 9
8 3 90 99 30 88 53 99 99 16 87 3 95 98 23 83 45 99 97 8 7
6 3 93 94 17 76 33 117 90 6 (1
5 3 91 85 1(1 68 24 94 78 4 5
4 2 87 77 .5 56 15 86 61 2 4
3 1 76 65 3 38 8 69 47 I 3
2 1 62 50 1 22 3 51 30 1 21 40 29 10 1 35 10 1
0 12 8 2 1 14 1 0
=72 N-=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72 N=72M=111.90 -=2.14 N1=2:11 M =9.61 M =4.2 M 7.47 M=2.11 M =3.37 M =9.55
D=3.93 SD=2.75 90=1.119 90=3.31 91)=2..m7 80=3.95 90=1.97 90=1.86 813 =2.19
263
23
22
21
20
19
38
17
16A 15IV
11
13
12
O fl
B 10
8
7
6
54
3
2
0
MVII
Plumbing and Sheet Metal
Mech. Health Off.Sere. k.
El Food C: rp So to Clean 0 it-I rim. Sere, entry Off, I lands doors
264
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
PLUMBING AND SHEET METAL
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
222120
909083
222120
11) 73 99 1918 65 98 1817 57 98 1716 47 98 90 1615 40 98 08 99 1514 37 98 96 97 96 1413 33 9P 91) 89 99 96 92 1312 31 98 98 80 98 95 85 1211 28 98 OS 60 98 02 71 11
10 21 98 97 54 98 86 55 109 13 98 96 47 95 71 39 1)
8 .5 98 95 40 92 54 24 87 2 95 92 32 88 40 98 98 10 76 2 88 86 24 81 20 92 04 10 (1
5 1 83 77 16 70 11 82 85 4 54 70 6i; 12 57 9 65 69 2 4
3 6:3 59 10 46 6 54 53 1 3.2 49 54 4 30 2 46 33 21 :33 30 13 30 13 1
0 12 10 4 10 3 0
N=49 N=49 N=49 N=40 N=49 N=49 N=40 N=49 N=49M =15.27 M=2.75 :A =2,88 M =8.80 M=3.82 M =7.65 M =2.73 M=3.02 M =9.55SD= 4.98 0=3,18 t1D= 2,93 SD=3,55 SD=2.74 SD =2.72 SD=2.17 SD=1.77 SD=2.50
265
A
S
It
2.3
22
21
19
IS
17
16
II15
12
IL
9
S
4
3
1
0
MVII
Fluid Power Technology
Mech. 11(.. ilt11serv, 11 k.
Ft.oci Carp.tr <n. Fen.. .etitr
888
Sales ()'t-Off, door,
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
FLUID POWER TECHNOLOGY
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2'd,
212019181716
99918072584537
22212019-181716
15 28 118 99 1514 22 93 98 1413 19 85 95 1312 16 99 78 97 85 1211 11 98 71 94 73 1110 6 98 97 56 92 99 56 10
9 3 94 95 40 98 81 98 34 I)
1 91 93 26 03 66 98 18 87 88 01 17 80 53 97 98 8 76 81 87 9 84 41 95 92 4 (1
5 70 82 . 2 73 30 89 77 2 54 59 77 60 18 81 59 .1
3 50 68 95 10 72 47 32 38 51 27 5 58 35 21 24 30 12 38 18 1
0 8 10 2 13 4 0
N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=51 N=M N=51M =10.63 M =3.49 M =2.71 M =9.75 M =3.67 N1=13.63 M =2.12 M=3.20 M=9.78SD=3.58 SD= 2.81. SD=2.75 SD=2.60 SD=2.31 SD=2.63 SD=2.14 SD= 1.99 SD=2.00
267
A
NV
'at
22
2 I
19
IS
17
15
12
11
III
9
Ii
5
1
1
II
MVII
Dental Assistant
Niceli. I li lth 1)13.
St ay. \\I:.E1 I..< ml I :arp- So. i.s Chan
Serv. tlitry Oil. I lands d ilirs
268
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI -SCORE TRAINING NORMS
DENTAL ASSISTANT
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp-entry
Sales Clean Out- RawOff. Hands doors Score
222120
222120
19 99 99 1918 I/5 9S 1817 90 97 1716 S5 93 1615 79 89
.9894 15
14 69 S7 89 1413 55 83 85 98 1312 45 79 76 %I 1211 37 72 65 99 92 11
10 99 20 59 59 96 80 109 98 18 45 99 49 93 72 99 9S 9S 13 36 98 34 87 58 93 S
7 98 9 27 97 20 7", 46 81 98 76 98 5 17 94 15 64 36 62 90 6
5 98 4 9 91) 13 17 23 40 79 54 94 4 6 86 10 25 13 26 62 4
3 87 2 0 7t 7 10 5 13 30 32 77 6 59 5 4 3 18 2I (H 5 32 2 2 5 I
0 211 2 S 1 0
N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52 N=52M=1.15 M =12.15 M=0.57 M =2.12 M =4.22 M =5.44 M =727 M =5.53 M =3.58
SD= 1.77 SD=3.03 SD= 3.97 SD=1.92 SD=3.1i1 SD = 2.14 SD= 2.05 SD= 1.77 SD= 1.60
269
A
NV
C
0II
G
5
(I
MVII
Diesel Mechanics
:do 01. Health Olf El T. Fi IA Carp- Sa es Chan Out-Sere, 11k. nun. Sere. en Ty Of. Hands doors
270
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCO2E TRAINING NORMS
DIESEL MECHANICS
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
93SO
2221
20 (12 99 2019 47 99 19
18 41 99 1817 35 99 1716 28 99 99 1615 24 99 97 99 1511 20 99 91 09 9013 11 90 79 99 96 97 1312 11 01) 99 72 98 92 87 1211 6 99 99 67 97 85 67 11
10 3 93 99 54 97 76 16 109 3 96 09 42 90 70 99 30 98 3 94 118 32 94 61 99 99 18 87 2 91 97 25 88 46 96 98 10 7
1 87 -96 18 78 31 1 ", 95 4 65 81 92 10 64 21 91 88 1 5
77 86 4 50 14 86 81 1 43 70 76 1 40 0 78 66 32 56 61 26 4 67 41 2
35 41 12 46 17 1
0 12 15 3 17 4 0
N=69 N=60 N=ti9 N=69 N=69 N=69 N=69 N=69 N=69M =17.78 M =2.59 M=1.93 M=0.58 M=4.17 M =7.42 M=1.77 M=2.62 M =9.00SD =3.80 SD=2.89 SD=2.10 SD=3.29 SD= 3.10 SD=3.09 SD=2.04 SD= 1.77 SD= 1.95
271
A
S
fi
5
4
3
I)
2
MVII
Cosmetology
Mcdt, 11e IthSta.
Off. 17.1ec. Food Carp. Sa es Oval' Out-Wk. trim. St re. retry 0 1. 11111d N doors
272
1
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
COSMETOLOGY
RawScore Mech
HealthSery
OffWk Iron,
FoodSery
Carp-entry
SalesOff,
Clean Out- RawLIP: nds doors Score
22 2221 99 2120 99 011 2019 9!) 90 99 19
IS 00 .. 97 98 1817 99 99 94 97 1716 99 07 01 94 911 1615 98 95 87 89 99 15
14 08 92 SI 83 99 14
13 98 87 75 99 74 011 99 13
i2 98 83 70 99 66 98 97 12
11 98 76 64 9!) 58 96 94 99 11
10 97 66 55 99 47 94 90 00 09 10
9 06 58 . .5 98 38 89 84 08 08 9
8 06 51 38 97 30 79 73 9.! 09 87 05 3 32 97 21 66 1 83 93 76 93 35 26 94 14 51 47 64 811 6
5 91 28 21) 88 10 33 33 42 73 54 87 21 14 78 6 18 19 94 53 4
3 80 i 5 0 62 3 8 8 13 41 32 (i7 ,.) 5 38 I 3 3 6 23 21 IS 3 2 16 I 1 2 9 1
0 18 I 4-- I 1 1 1 9-
N =249 N =219 N =249 N =249 N =219 N=245 N =249 N =249 N =249M=1.94 M =7.01 M=9.45 M =2.94 M =10.21 M =11.10 11=(.42 M=5.24 M =3.71
89=2.94 59 =4.18 S1)=4.58 80=1.98 S9=3,78 89=2.35 SI)=1.1.65 50 =1.80 S1)=2.09
273
MVII
Machine Shop
S
am.umnialum
__________().rlec, ttml
tton. Soy, entry
274
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
MACHINE , SHOP
Raw Health. OffScore Mech Sery Wk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Chan Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
222120
088978
2221
19 65 99 99 1018 61) 99 99 1817 39 99 99 99 1716 30 99 99 99 90 1615 23 99 99 97 99 1514 16 09 99 95 08 99 1413 1) 99 99 92 99 04 93 1312 8 99 98 84 98 SS 82 1211 7 90 98 75 98 79 90 09 68 11
10 0 99 98 65 96 70 99 99 52 109 4 98 97 53 95 59 99 99 34 98 4 98 96 44 92 48 09 98 20 87 3 97 93 3,5 89 37 08 94 11 71) 2 94 89 21 83 25 97 88 5 65 1 88 83 12 75 17 94 79 2 5
4 1 80 76 6 63 11 89 66 1
3 1 70 65 3 46 6 80 45 1 32 1 54 50 1 27 3 54 25 21 1 31 29 1I 1 39 10 1
0 1 9 9 .2 13 2 0
NIno3
SD =o.u2
N=I66M=2.40
SD=2.45
N=185M=2.74
SD=2.80
N=1031M =8.07
SD=3.13
N=153M = 3.n
SD=2.62
N=185M =8.15
S D=3.14
N=156M=1.80
BD =1.81
N=150M=3.413
SD=2.01
N=365M=0.82
SD=2,18
275
11
A
.13
22
21
20
U
111
1.1
1:3
12
It10
9
5
.1
:3
2
(1
MVII
Secretarial Training
Med:. I Ithh 1.Soy, W14.
Elm. 1,, od Go. Sales (11,,an tha-I I nfl. Ser.*. entry (111, 1 lutitk driors
276
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYi'!"_OJECT MINI -SCORE TRAINING iNORMS
SECRETARIAL TRAINING
Raw Health OffScore Mech Sery Wk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
2221
20 99 96 2019 91) 99 S7 09 1918 99 99 78 09 1817 09 98 68 99 1716 99 96 57 09 90 1615 1)0 95 -17 09 98 99 151.1 09 93 39 99 96 99 99 1413 09 90 :31 09 04 09 99 1312 99 86 23 09 110 99 99 99 1211 99 82 20 00 83 09 97 99 99 11
10 99 77 13 99 7.1 97 94 97 09 100 99 71 11 99 63 93 89 91 99 98 98 65 8 09 51 88 80 81) 98 87 98 58 6 99 :39 79 68 (13 96 76 98 50 4 97 28 64 53 43 92 65 97 41 3 04 19 46 36 24 84 54 9(1 :12 2 84 11 30 23 12 68 43 04 23 I 90 6 15 12 5 46 3
2 88 14 1 -12 4 5 -I 1 25 2
1 72 0. I 18 .2 2 1 1 9 1
0 30 2 1 4 1 1 1 0
N =739 N=739 N =739 N =739 N=730 N =739 N=730 M =780 N =730M = .84 M =6.71 M =1.1..10 M=2.52 M =7.93 M=5.34 M=5,95 11=0.33 M =3.31
SD=1.87 SD=4.35 SD= 4.14 SD= 1.7.5 SD=3.23 SD= 2.24 Sll =2.44 SD= 1.91 SD = 1.80
277
Ft
A
S
0It
23
22
21
20
R1
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
8
5
4
3
MV11
Accounting
Ich. I Le 111. th Off, Elec- Food Carp- Sa es Clean Out-
Src Iron. Serr. Off. Hands doors
278
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
ACCOUNTING
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
2221
20 90 97 2019 09 09 89 1918 99 99 77 99 1817 99 99 03 99 1716 99 99 51 99 98 1615 98 99 42 99 97 99 1514 97 98 34 99 96 99 1413 96 08 27 98 94 99 90 1312 93 97 20 97 91 97 90 09 99 1211 91 05 14 96 87 95 99 99 99 11
10 89 93 10 95 81 91 96 95 08 109 87 00 7 93 72 85 92 87 95 98 83 86 6 91 65 77 84 74 89 87 80 82 5 89 59 64 75 56 80 76 76 78 4 85 51 49 65 39 70 65 71 70 3 75 43 35 53 25 59 54 64 50 2 63 37 20 39 12 41 43 56 47 2 49 28 10 24 5 28 32 46 35 2 31 18 4 12 2 13 21 33 21 1 13 8 1 5 1 5 1
0 13 7 1 3 2 2 1 0
N=398 N=398 N=398 N=308 N=398 N=398 N =398 N=398 N=398M=3.82 M =3.00 M=14.96 M=3.72 M=6.25 M=6.24 M=5.05 M =6,55 M =4.70
8D=4.22 SD --=3.55 SD=3.93 SD=2,92 8D=4.12 SD=2.61 SD=2.63 80=2 16 SD=2,43
279:
2:3
21
19
Is
17
II 16
A 15
11
S
011 1(1
9
(3
5
1
:3
2
1
MVII
Clerical Training
Mech, Ile 04 () I, Klee 1 ttl Carp. Saks Ch an ()W-SW. Wk. (ran, Sen.. entry 09. Ila nls door,
280
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
CLERICAL TRAINING
Raw Health Off Elec. Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron, Sery entry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
2221
20 97 2019 99 91 99 19
18 99 S5 99 18
17 99 99 71 99 1716 99 97 61 99 99 16
15 99 96 51 99 117 1111 15
14 99 9.1 .12 99 95 99 99 I113 99 91 34 99 111 99 99 13
12 99 89 27 99 86 99 !IS 99 99 12
II 99 86 20 99 79 !IS 97 99 99 I I
10 4.19 S2 15 119 70 96 9-1 95 99 10
9 99 71; 11 99 59 93 110 88 99 98 98 69 9 9S 5 87 81 77 98 87 !IS 61 6 97 33 76 71) 59 96 7
6 97 53 94 23 63 56 1 91 65 95 14 3 88 15 6 39 21 80 5
1 92 35 2 76 9 28 21 12 62 4
3 87 25 I 58 6 13 13 5 41 3
2 78 17 I 36 2 6 2 24 2
1 58 8 1 15 1 1 2 1 9 1
1) 23 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 0
N=551 N=55I N =551 N=55I N=55I N=5.5I N =551 N=551 N=55151 =1.30 M=0.27 M=14.16 M=2.87 M=8.41 M=5.45 M=5.S2 M=0.48 M =3.46
SD=2.09 SD= 4.23 SD= 3.95 SD= 1.89 0=3.24 SD=2.21 SD=2.51 SD=2.03 SD =1.93
281
It
(
It
21
IS
17
11
12
11
10
(I
MVII
Sales
_
I
_
___ _
- -1_----
I_ .
1
I
___
--, -
,
1
1
1
1
MI
i
El_
_
11....1111
Nov. IUtI
282
St.1
Sale. (J,, lut
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
SALES
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
222120 99 2019 :19 9:1 1918 98 97 91) 1817 96 94 09 99 1716 94 91 IN 9915 03 85 00 08 1514 93 99 79 98 96 14
13 91 07 73 97 94 91) 99 1312 88 95 65 97 92 98 96 12
I I 87 94 56 06 88 00 93 98 I 1
IO 85 93 50 94 83 90 86 98 94 109 81 92 46 91 79 82 78 93 87 08 75 88 39 85 75 72 69 84 77 87 71 80 33 76 68 59 58 71 08 76 66 71 28 68 58 48 46 ;.6 58 65 59 63 22 59 48 35 34 42 44 5
4 5(1 53 17 48 36 19 22 27 3(1 4
3 42 38 10 36 22 111 12 10 19 32 32 25 4 22 10 5 7 1 12 2
1 18 12 2 10 4 1 4 4 1
0 5 3 1 3 1 1 1 0
N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N=108 N =108 N=108M=5.22 M =4.47 M=0.50 M=4.72 51=6.00 11 =6.36 M =3.45 51 =5.68 M =5.58
SD=4.86 SD=3.25 SD= 4.81 SD=3.30 SD=3.62 SD =2.04 SD= 3.01 SD=2.07 SD=2.74
283
S
MVII
Agri-Technology
_1----
NIttli. II. . glib OIL Eh., oggl C. rp- S.i ggs (:1g..m (bit-Set v. Wk. Iron. 'land, glom.;
284
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
AGRI- TECHNOLOGY
RawScore
HealthMech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2'22221 99 21
21) 291!I 95 119 99 19
IS 90 99 98 99 IS17 S6 99 96 99 17
Ili 50 99 91 99 16
15 72 99 .13 117 15I 1 66 98 92 97 97 99 .99 I I
1:1 57 94 91) 91 1)5 97 93 13
12 50 95 56 SS 92 112 94 12
1 1 -11 117 52 83 s9 S7 87 I 1
10 35 94 79 77 57 SO 99 99 73 II)9 :13 90 77 (9) S3 (7 911 97 58 9
8 27 56 74 19) 77 56 95 93 137 21 81 70 52 (9) 45 92 5)1 296 17 74 63 41 60 31 85 74 IS5 11 1I6 55 :91 53 19 7S 62 9 54 1 I 62 -18 21 1 13 6-1 45 11 .1
9 50 :19 13 33 S 43 29 22 6 33 27 7 21 1 27 I 6 2 2
2 20 16 2 11 I 15
7 ti 1 4 5 I)
N=115 5=115 N=115 5=115 \ =11:i 5=115 5 =115 N=115 N=115M=11:37 11=4.01 M=5.65 M=7.19 1E =5,41 NI =7,5! M=3.50 11=4.44 11 =8.34
89=3.51 89=4.9.5 89=3.58 81)=3.00 $1) =2,95 89=2.34 89=2.18 80=2.45
285
22
20
11/
IS
17
15
It13
12
11
9
8
5
.1
3
2
1
0
MVII
Power and Home Electricity
Mech. 1 (=mli Off. Eke. Food Carp. Sales CI an Out-Sm. tron. Sm.. entry CA /lands (It lrs
286
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
POWER AND HOME ELECTRICITY
Raw Health OffScore M ech Sery Wk
Elec-trop.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221201018
9991780757
2221
201918
17 45 90 90 1716 36 85 99 1)1) 1015 311 99 72 99II 23 99 60 98 99 99 14
13 18 99 99 47 98 90 00 1312 14 OS 99 33 97 OS 88 1211 III 97 99 22 90 97 76 11
10 7 90 99 14 95 96 59 10
9 5 95 08 9 93 93 99 91) 13 08 4 93 97 6 90 87 99 98 29 s7 3 91 95 1 80 79 97 95 10 76 2 80 03 3 78 66 95 90 9 65 1 79 89 2 61) 51 89 83 5 54 1 70 81 1 58 34 80 70 2 4
3 1 60 69 1 42 19 68 51 1 32 1 46 53 1 23 10 49 30 1 21 1 25 31 8 4 26 130 1 0 9 1 1 8 3 0
N =207 N =207 N =207 N =207 N=207 N =207 N=207 N =207 N=201M =16.57 M =3.12 M =2.38 M =12.94 M =4.18 1,5 =5.10 M=2.40 M=3.18 N1=9.2881)=4.01 SD =2.92 14D SD=2.93 =2.96 SD =2.58 SD =1.91 SD = 1.91 81)=-2.30
287
S
1(
21
21
20
10
IS
17
lk
15
13
1
:3
(I
MVII
Aircraft Mechanics
1--
Sc v.Off. 1.*,,a1 C. Saks (..k.aa t-'k. trou. Scrv. entry 01E. 'buds doors
288
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINISCORE TRAINING NORMS
AIRCRAFT MECHANICS
Ra Health Off Elec- Food Carp- Sales Clean Out- RawScore Mech Sery Wk tron. Sery entry Off, Hands doors Score
2221
20111
IS
95S3675037
2221
2(1
19
IS17 26 99 1716 19 98 16I5 17 93 1514 13 88 99 119 1.1
13 S 80 98 95 1312 5 911 67 99 96 83 12II 3 119 55 99 91 71 11
10 2 99 12 US 85 99 52 109 I 97 28 97 78 99 31 98 95 99 17 93 70 97 99 16 87 92 95 1 I 89 63 96 91) 7 76 85 1)5 7 78 56 93 97 4 65 80 97 3 65 44 S9 92 2 54 74 9.1 2 53 25 79 S5 1 4
3 57 87 I 39 17 66 71 3
2 36 73 21 S 50 16 21 18 48 7 3 27 22 1
(1 5 16 2 1 8 0 0
5 =103 N= 103 5 =103 5 =103 N =103 5 =10:1 5 =101 5 =103 N=103M =18.24 M =3.13 M =1,41 M =10.58 M =4.09 M =5.14 M =2.49 M =2.33 11=11.8961)=3.05 Sll =2.42 81.)= 1.55 SI)=2.89 0=2.41 8=3.19 S0 =2.11 S p= 1.9.5 SD= 1.95
289
5
.3
MVII
Data Processing
.
. _.. _
(
. .
. -_
t -1-1
-
...-.----_
--- _----
._--,
T
Nlutli. 11.1tIt lave.trim.
290
Fondentry
SAles 1 loan ( )11t-()II. I idinis dolls
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
DATA PROCESSING
Raw HealthScore Mech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Salesentry Off.
Clean Out-Hands doors
RawScore
'22
21
2221
20 98 20
19 94 19
18 99 88 IS17 99 80 17
16 98 !)9 71 99 16
15 97 98 62 99 99 15
14 95 96 53 98 !IS 99 11
13 92 95 1 97 97 99 99 13
12 89 91 39 95 95 9S 9:1 12
11 S5 92 33 92 90 96 ,S 97 99 II10 82 88 26 S9 85 91 96 91 98 10
9 79 83 20 86 80 811 93 gli 93 9
8 75 78 18 S1 73 77 S i 77 S7 S 'N,
7 73 71 17 75 l;3 65 71 (Ni 79 7 "I6 (18 61 13 69 52 50 61 50 69 6
5 62 51 S 61 3 35 6 32 56 5
4 56 40 5 53 35 25 30 18 0 1
3 19 30 3 37 21 16 17 9 26 3
2 41 22 1 22 11 7 9 4 11 2
1 31 13 1 8 (; 1 4 1 5 I
0 12 4 1 1 1 1 1 0
N=157 N=157 N=157 \ =157 N-157 N=157 \ =157 N=157 N-15751 = 4.55 51 = 5.31 M =12.77 51 =4.84 =5.92 7=6.05 51 =5.39 51 -= 5.1S 51 4.S3
SD= 1.70 SD = 3.79 So 1.63 S1)=3.50 S1)=3.48 S1)=2.71 141)=2.43 S D=2.12 SD =2.4S
291
MV11
Medical Laboratory Assistant
tli. ii t .til. (mt. Clr 1.,,KIS. %. \\ k. ti,ok
292
Carl,ittry
Sir, 111,n011 Hand,
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
MEDICAL LABORATORY ASSISTANT
Raw HealthScore Med.' Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
2221
Y.!
2120 99 20II) 318 93 1918 98 7)) Is17 98 -15 l16 98 28 1)6 1615 98 to 90 15I4 97 16 84 I-1
13 96 13 99 76 99 1312 06 10 06 66 97. 1211 95 7 04 58 95 11
10 1)3 6 02 91) 50 98 91 99 111
9 91 5 85 97 :39 93 82 97 98 89 4 77 94 27 87 66 93 87 SO 1 68 911 18 78 47 97 86 76 84 6)) 88. 14 65 34 87 82 Ii
5 82 53 87 11 54 28 73 71 54 i 9 -1 43 84 8 41 17 56 58 43 77 4 29 72 5 23 8 :34 40 32 06 4 18 53 :3 II 5 17 20 2I 4 4 12 29 I 5 3 7 7 I
0 15 2 4 7 I I 1 2 0
N=49 N=40 N-=49 N=49 N=49 N=49 S=49 N=49 S=49M =2.73 M =16.02 M =5.20 M =2.51 M = 10.04 M =4.94 M=6.70 M =3.70 M =3.02
SD= 4.08 81)=3.96 SD = 3.38 S1)=2.43 81)=3.75 SD= 2.47 SD= 2.69 SD= 1.75 SI)=. 2.30
293
A'V
21
20
19
IS
rr1(i
17)
I I
I:3
12
11
Ill¶1
S
5
3
MVII
Interior Design and Sales Assistant
NI,. 11. I le iltli Off.!les. Wk.
El v.tron.
294
FoodSirs.
Carp..1,1 try
Soles Cl .alt Out.Off. I funds tlimrs
MINNESOTA VOCATIONAL INTEREST INVENTORYPROJECT MINI-SCORE TRAINING NORMS
INTERIOR DESIGN AND SALES ASSISTANT
RawScor
HealthMech Sery
OffWk
Elec-tron.
FoodSery
Carp- Sales Clean Out- Rawentry Off. Hands doors Score
222120
222120
19 99 99 1918 98 97 1817 98 05 99 1716 97 99 94 09 98 1615 94 97 91 98 98 09 15
14 02 94 89 97 96 9813 90 02 80 90 94 98 OS 1312 88 111 88 96 90 94 06 1211 87 87 84 96 82 87 92 11
10 86 82 80 95 76 76 80 10
S I 77 72 94 71 63 64 98 76 69 64 03 63 53 52 97 99 87 74 01 57 87 41 41 90 94 7
71 57 51 81 25 31 70 87 65 63 54 43 73 10 24 64 71 54 56 44 34 59 11 15 43. 42 43 49 34 30 43 8 (1 7 22 15 32 38 23 25 28 5 3 3 9 4 2
1 21 10 17 18 2 2 3 2 1
0 6 2 (3 1 1 0
N=54 N=54 N=54 X=54 N=54 N=54 N=54 N=54 N=54M=4.85 M=5.76 M=6.-16 51=3.89 M=7.4:1 M=7.74 7.50 M=4.43 M=4.35
SD=4.77 SD=4.23 SD=5.00 SD=3.20 SD=3.42 SD=2.84 SD=2.90 SD= 1.51 SD= 1.42
295